It's like when the WLB said the crowds at his inauguration were the BIGGEST EVER!




Yup.  "Testimony."  "Eye-Witness account."

(August 29, 2017 at 12:36 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(August 28, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Hammy Wrote: Because it's not evidence!

P.S. If it was evidence it would stand on it's own at least as weak evidence.

Does it not stand on it's own, because it is not evidence?   This seems a bit circular to me.

Any how, I posted a lawyers Q&A page. The overwhelming consensus was that given good testimony, that it can stand on it's own.

Back to lawyers and what they hope to get a jury to -accept- as evidence, are we?  I thought we already discussed this?

(August 29, 2017 at 11:23 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 29, 2017 at 10:27 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You missed my point.  The event is not the evidence. The event is the occurrence. If you're going to engage in discussion, it pays to use words in accordance with their definitions.

As for your second question, I've already mentioned in this thread that I think testimony may be evidence in some situations. If a person comes to a conclusion in the absence of evidence -- such as you or NS with regards to your faith -- that's your business. If you want to convince me of something, bring me evidence.

Roadrunner79 and I are in fact paying very close attention to definitions. The word evidence has two connotations: (1) that which is evident, i.e. basic facts and observations; and (2) that which given warrant to an opinion. We claim nothing more than the notion that personal testimony satisfies the definition as (1) and that a sufficient quantity of quality testimony can give warrant satisfies the definition as (2).

We are also saying that the distinction between (1) and (2) must be mutually understood before there can be a meaningful debate about any specific opinion

You may understand the word, but it's clear RR doesn't.

---

(August 29, 2017 at 12:56 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Any how, I posted a lawyers Q&A page. The overwhelming consensus was that given good testimony, that it can stand on it's own.

I see no reason to regard this hearsay as factual. Can you link to that q&a page so that I can read for myself what was written?

(August 29, 2017 at 1:32 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 29, 2017 at 12:56 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Any how, I posted a lawyers Q&A page.   The overwhelming consensus was that given good testimony, that it can stand on it's own.

I see no reason to regard this hearsay as factual. Can you link to that q&a page so that I can read for myself what was written?

Sure... it was in the OP (and I think I posted it another time) Also posted in the other thread.

Quote:In addition at least in the U.S. this is the case, as I previously posted a lawyers Q&A site, as evidence for testimony here and here

I find it truly fucking amazing that RR has castigated us for providing allegory and cherry picking as our only evidence (despite that claim being bullshit) then finally, after mumerous, repeated requests, gives us a link to his evidence. A blog full of opinion and speculation. Allegory in its purest form. No evidence of testimony overturning physical evidence or testimony overturning any convictions where the physical evidence was the primary reason for the conviction. No, we get a blog with a bunch of "what ifs" and were expected to swallow the bullshit.

Fortunately, the courts are, more and more, seeing that testimony is piss poor evidence in and of itself and moving further away from the days of two reliable witnesses.

RR, if you want to try again, this time with actual evidence (not more hypocrisy via allegory), I'll be more than willing to look. Until then, four fucking threads of "look, testimony evidence is soooooo fucking the same as physical evidence" is more than enough for me.

(August 29, 2017 at 10:31 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Fucking hell  how does this guy function ?

 

He is on a Mission from god.

(August 28, 2017 at 1:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

Quote:You are basing your whole position on witness testimony being "inherently unreliable as a form of evidence"

That's because it IS.  I'm sorry you don't like that fact, but your inability to accept demonstrable facts you don't happen to care for is not really my problem.

Quote:is not the case that once a matter gets to some subjective threshold of consequential, we discard witness testimony.

Lol, Steve.  You suck at this, you know that? Please point to where in my previous response to you, I said anything about discarding testimony?  Straw. What I said very clearly was, once a person gets to that subjective threshold they should (if they want to have rational beliefs only) withhold belief in that claim until more reliable, corroborating evidence is found.  Either your reading comprehension sucks, or you're playing stupid.  Either way, I'm getting bored quickly.

Quote:For the fourth (and last) time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

1 A witness's recollection could be wrong
2 The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context.

More accurate than what?   Your logical argument is not, and never will be, "more accurate" than actual evidence, Steve.  It's irrelevant in the face of actual evidence.  There is no rational case to be made for believing in supernatural claims SOLELY on testimony of any kind.

The reason you are not getting what I say is I have been trying (to no avail) to show you that the issue is way more nuanced that your simplistic approach--NOT that I don't understand you. 

Simplistic view: Witness testimony being "inherently unreliable as a form of evidence" needs more evidence for serious stuff if you wish to be "rational". 

More nuanced understanding: It depends.
1. This is apparent in the fact that we rely on testimony alone in hundreds of categories millions of time an hour all over the world--many in very serious situations. Why? Because we have background information that helps us determine if we can rely on it: the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record as well as the context of the event. For all these reasons, witness testimony is constantly rationally relied on. You have failed over and over to address this point.
2. You admit the threshold for needing more evidence is subjective. Having differences in thresholds between people significantly undermines your simplistic view by making it a matter of opinion. And if this threshold is a matter of opinion, then so is your determination of when it is rational to believe it. 
3. Witness testimony can corroborate witness testimony. Wouldn't two or more people testifying to a fact increase the likelihood that it is true? At some point, the adjective 'unreliable' does not apply to any of their individual testimonies and would be considered strong evidence and rational to believe the claim.
4. Sometimes witness testimony is all that is available as evidence. If that is the case, under your simplistic view, you could never rationally hold a belief in serious matters based on testimony--no matter what the circumstances.

Your response to my little syllogism is confused. It was clearly in response to your simplistic view of the universal unreliability of witnesses (way back)--not as an alternative to other evidence. I think it more accurately characterizes what we are talking about than you propose. 

Most of you think that I am trying to prove my belief in Christianity rational. I am not. I have engaged only in philosophically discussing the topic and I have supported each premise and critique with reasons. Constantly trying to pull my personal beliefs in shows you are not willing to engage in the topic for the topic's sake, but would rather posture for some argument/conclusion not being made.

(August 29, 2017 at 1:54 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I find it truly fucking amazing that RR has castigated us for providing allegory and cherry picking as our only evidence (despite that claim being bullshit) then finally, after mumerous, repeated requests, gives us a link to his evidence. A blog full of opinion and speculation. Allegory in its purest form. No evidence of testimony overturning physical evidence or testimony overturning any convictions where the physical evidence was the primary reason for the conviction. No, we get a blog with a bunch of "what ifs" and were expected to swallow the bullshit.

Fortunately, the courts are, more and more, seeing that testimony is piss poor evidence in and of itself and moving further away from the days of two reliable witnesses.

RR, if you want to try again, this time with actual evidence (not more hypocrisy via allegory), I'll be more than willing to look. Until then, four fucking threads of "look, testimony evidence is soooooo fucking the same as physical evidence" is more than enough for me.

According the the author, most of these are based on real stories.  And even if they are not, the reasoning still holds the same.

Also, you are mistaken, this was posted in response to claims, that testimony is not evidence, or it is so weak as to be useless on it's own.  I wasn't disputing them for the individual cases, and I assume that many where correct in their conclusions (regarding DNA overturning previous cases).  My criticism was directed at trying to make an overall generalization based on cherry picking and anecdotal evidence (which is incorrect).  If I was making an absolute claim, then this would be correct to counter it.  However I am not.  And I'm not saying that testimonial evidence always trumps DNA evidence (alhtough it sometimes can).  That is all that I am putting forth.  No hypocrisy here.

And if don't want to discuss and think about the ideas presented, but are more interested in rhetoric; then I welcome your leaving of the discussion. You may want to note however, that this is largely a philosophical discussion.  It's not about evidence or really any evidence is testimony.   However it is about the reasoning, for why the view of testimony as evidence should be changed, or should not be considered evidence.

Quote: According the the author, most of these are based on real stories.

Ha!  According to the authors - whoever they may have been - your fucking bible is based on a true story.  It's just another claim, RR.  One of your specialties it seems.