(September 2, 2017 at 9:42 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 31, 2017 at 8:51 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @steve -

I believe you are trying to sneak science through the back door without having to actually do it.  Phrases like, 'take care,' and 'background information' are just softer, and less threatening than saying 'controlling variables' and, 'gathering data.'  You don't get to call upon these tools and then let them hang in the empty space of a syllogism.  You're responsible for them.  You're asserting there exists a method of quality control which allows us to distinguish (to some as of yet unspecified degree of accuracy) between reliable and unreliable testimony, and that in doing so, we can reasonably accept claims based on testimony alone.  You don't get to assert that, and then hide behind a logical argument.  You bare the burden of demonstrating the efficacy of this proposed method.  If you can't, then your conclusion is meaningless to the real world.  Two points:

1. I don't think you could if you tried. Even if you were able to control for every single one of the metrics you listed, you're still only demonstrating, at best, that your witness is reliable.  Witness reliability does not necessarily equal accurate testimony, as reliable witnesses give inaccurate testimony all the time.  

2.  If you were able to demonstrate this method to be at least as efficacious as holding one's breath on a testimonial until stronger evidence arises, it renders your argument dead in the water, as you have now relied on objective, external, corroborating evidence to support a logical conclusion about testimony being reliable and sufficient on its own, in the absence of corroborating evidence.  

I dare say all of this was just elaborate hand-waving in order to shift the focus on to the nature of claimant and away from the nature of the claim.  I wonder why that would be?

Yep, after 16 years of online debate with theists of every label you can think of, when you hear, "I'm not trying to argue my religion,(insert Christianity, Islam, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist) here, it is a dead give away that they will in the future, maybe not in the moment you are engaging in, but the theist always does.

If they cant argue flat out, they get sneaky by trying to either debunk science or try to co op science. It is like exposing a Vegas sidewalk 3 cup and ball trick. 

The problem is as much as they are trying to convince you, even more what they are really doing is trying to convince themselves. Theism is not neutral or objective or universal. It never has been nor will be.

The amount of work they're willing to put into it is baffling.  I can see how someone like WLC is able to generate fame and fortune from
the manipulative, fallacious crap he spews.

(August 30, 2017 at 1:54 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(August 30, 2017 at 1:40 pm)Khemikal Wrote: None of that makes "witness testimony" evidence.  You;re looking for a solution as to when or if you accept witness testimony, but regardless of when or if you do or what line you draw it will still just be you -accepting- witness testimony.  

It is not transformed, by your acceptance of it, into evidence.  It is still entirely unlike those other reps of the set we've been discussing and which we call "evidence".  It still makes nothing of it's contents -evident-.  You can accept that I had a cheeseburger, or not...but neither my claim that I did nor your acceptance or rejection of my claim provides -evidence- of whether or not I had a cheeseburger.  It doesn't even provide evidence that -I- believe I had a cheeseburger (even if you accept my "witness testimony", and so you do believe).......it doesn't even provide evidence that cheeseburgers exist.........

That's a mighty fucking fail for something you accept as evidence.  But hey, you do you.

GB stated unequivocally in the post I was responding to that witness testimony is evidence--therefore I was not arguing that dead horse.

Please quit mis-representing my stance.  I said it was acceptable as evidence, in support of physical evidence.

Me and a few of my friends saw Pee Wee Herman anally rape a bulldog.

I cant tell you their names but it like totally happened.

This is like witness testimony in the bible.

Made up nonsense. Supported by nothing.

(September 3, 2017 at 5:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Me and a few of my friends saw Pee Wee Herman anally rape a bulldog.

I cant tell you their names but it like totally happened.

This is like witness testimony in the bible.

Made up nonsense. Supported by nothing.

Not really, because that bestial buggering is at least physically possible, not unlike the impossible bullshit in holy books.

It looks like RR has bailed on his own thread, again.

What's the over/under on number of weeks before he posts "Testimony is Evidence V: The Final Bullshit Argument?"

How many people were murdered by fine xtians giving "testimony" that they were doing witchcraft?  You have to be an amazing asshole to think such "testimony" is valid for anyone but another idiot jesus freak.

(September 4, 2017 at 1:35 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: It looks like RR has bailed on his own thread, again.

What's the over/under on number of weeks before he posts "Testimony is Evidence V: The Final Bullshit Argument?"

And you just know he's spent the last week feverishly trying to uncover a case where witness testimony overturned physical evidence.  😂

Lets not fall for this again . Next time he starts up a thread like this let's just ignore it.

(September 4, 2017 at 1:35 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: It looks like RR has bailed on his own thread, again.

What's the over/under on number of weeks before he posts "Testimony is Evidence V: The Final Bullshit Argument?"

Sorry, I've been busy building a deck.  Working hard, but good days, and didn't feel like coming here (and ruining it with the negativity).

Is there something that you would like to discuss more?

I could see where we could discuss the studies or reasons that are being used to say that witness testimony are unreliable and therefore not good evidence.  We could go into what the studies actually say, and their impact on the discussion.

Or we could discuss how I think that you are inconsistent in your views and that I wouldn't be allowed to dismiss evidence, just because it comes as testimony from another.  As well as those who are arguing that their personal experience is too unreliable in which to base a belief.

---

(September 4, 2017 at 1:39 am)Minimalist Wrote: How many people were murdered by fine xtians giving "testimony" that they were doing witchcraft?  You have to be an amazing asshole to think such "testimony" is valid for anyone but another idiot jesus freak.

Do you think that was based on good testimony?

How do you determine whether testimony is good? Oh ya you need evidence that actually supports it, that's the only way to know if its actually true.