(August 8, 2012 at 3:20 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I couldn't live with myself if I wouldn't convict a man of a crime that there were 200 reliable witnesses to.

Which has exactly jack shit to do whether or not personal testimony is reliable in the first place. Consider what you've said here btw, that you would toss in the guilty verdict on charges of murder even if no crime had been established in the first place, so long as enough people said so. I really hope not. But hey, whats the worst that could happen right? It's not as though mobs of people might put the finger on someone for something they didn't do, or something that had never -in fact- been done in the first place......

(August 8, 2012 at 3:14 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: reliable eyewitnesses

While we're on the subject, how about you let us know how one separates the "reliable" eyewitnesses from the unreliable ones?

(August 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 3:14 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: reliable eyewitnesses

While we're on the subject, how about you let us know how one separates the "reliable" eyewitnesses from the unreliable ones?

Stab in the dark? By the metrics of whether or not one might attempt to argue for other absurdities based on the weight and contents of their testimony.

(August 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 3:14 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: reliable eyewitnesses

While we're on the subject, how about you let us know how one separates the "reliable" eyewitnesses from the unreliable ones?

Isn't that something the court already has a procedure for?

(August 9, 2012 at 11:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: While we're on the subject, how about you let us know how one separates the "reliable" eyewitnesses from the unreliable ones?

Isn't that something the court already has a procedure for?

Yes. It's called "corroborating evidence", precisely what you've been arguing against.

(August 8, 2012 at 3:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 8, 2012 at 3:20 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I couldn't live with myself if I wouldn't convict a man of a crime that there were 200 reliable witnesses to.

Which has exactly jack shit to do whether or not personal testimony is reliable in the first place. Consider what you've said here btw, that you would toss in the guilty verdict on charges of murder even if no crime had been established in the first place, so long as enough people said so. I really hope not. But hey, whats the worst that could happen right? It's not as though mobs of people might put the finger on someone for something they didn't do, or something that had never -in fact- been done in the first place......

This really isn't about my argument. Honestly, and I think most people would agree with me, it seems fair to convict a person of a crime where you have 200 reliable witnesses to this crime even if something like the smoking gun or the body is never found. You can play the skeptic till the cows come home but just because you can come up with some outlandish scenario in which an innocent person gets convicted doesn't mean that it doesn't fall beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

The point for eyewitness testimony… not that I expect you to be interested in much truth other than that which makes you feel superior enough to mock me… is that we have one instance that eyewitness testimony is justifiably relied upon as the only evidence. Such could be the case for the existence of God where people experience Him and testify to it.

---

(August 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 11:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Isn't that something the court already has a procedure for?

Yes. It's called "corroborating evidence", precisely what you've been arguing against.

I'm no lawyer, but in your own life I'm sure you know reliable people and you also know how you know that they are reliable in telling the truth about a given instance. So you must admit that people are reliable and that this can be known.

(August 10, 2012 at 12:02 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Yes. It's called "corroborating evidence", precisely what you've been arguing against.

I'm no lawyer, but in your own life I'm sure you know reliable people and you also know how you know that they are reliable in telling the truth about a given instance. So you must admit that people are reliable and that this can be known.

Yes, I know people who I generally trust, but not to the point where I would advocate putting someone in prison on their say so.

So, I must do nothing of the sort. You are mistaken.

(August 10, 2012 at 12:14 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 12:02 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I'm no lawyer, but in your own life I'm sure you know reliable people and you also know how you know that they are reliable in telling the truth about a given instance. So you must admit that people are reliable and that this can be known.

Yes, I know people who I generally trust, but not to the point where I would advocate putting someone in prison on their say so.

So, I must do nothing of the sort. You are mistaken.

The court was just used as an example for a point someone made awhile ago (I don't even remember who… do you?) You seem to agree that there is an instance where it is good to trust the word of reliable people.

(August 10, 2012 at 12:45 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: The court was just used as an example for a point someone made awhile ago (I don't even remember who… do you?)

No, but as I recall, it was not favorable to your opinion.

Quote:You seem to agree that there is an instance where it is good to trust the word of reliable people.

For mundane claims, yes. For extraordinary claims, no. For judicial claims, no.

There's still the issue of establishing who is "reliable". I stand by my position that corroborating evidence is required for non-mundane claims.

Clearly you disagree, as is your right. You're free to be as credulous as you choose, but don't expect me to follow suit.

(August 10, 2012 at 12:02 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: This really isn't about my argument. Honestly, and I think most people would agree with me, it seems fair to convict a person of a crime where you have 200 reliable witnesses to this crime even if something like the smoking gun or the body is never found. You can play the skeptic till the cows come home but just because you can come up with some outlandish scenario in which an innocent person gets convicted doesn't mean that it doesn't fall beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

Whether or not it "seems fair" to you doesn't change the fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and not sufficient evidence in and of itself. It would be nice to think that mis-identification was an "outlandish scenario", it really would, but it isn't. That's just one glaring example of the unreliability of personal testimony. I could give you list that read like a demons resume if you wanted...but no, it "seems fair".

Quote:The point for eyewitness testimony… not that I expect you to be interested in much truth other than that which makes you feel superior enough to mock me… is that we have one instance that eyewitness testimony is justifiably relied upon as the only evidence. Such could be the case for the existence of God where people experience Him and testify to it.

Show me this instance? I already asked you if you could find such a precedent, couldn't be easier to make me eat crow than that could it? One case, in the vast ocean of cases filed daily by our overly litigious culture...and all you need to do is bring one (1) to the table. No, I don't think you will, I don't think you'll even look. You want to talk about truth huh? Well, I suspect that this argument itself is more important to you than any measure of truth contained within it. Otherwise you might have put forward the tiny amount of effort involved in researching the subject, you'd know precisely why personal testimony is insufficient, you'd know that we don't convict people on nothing more than some assholes word...or even 200 assholes words.... No, the truth isn't important to you here, all you're interested in is feeling like you have an argument for your imaginary friend. You don't.

Quote:I'm no lawyer,

Clearly.......but neither am I, and I'm guessing Cthulu isn't either. This isn't exactly arcane information that one has to spend years at law school to find Jeff. This stuff isn't hidden in the margins of the fucking bar exam. If you want to make such a comparison as a way of validating personal testimony(though you seem to be conflicted on that count) then perhaps you should have looked into this?

Quote: but in your own life I'm sure you know reliable people and you also know how you know that they are reliable in telling the truth about a given instance. So you must admit that people are reliable and that this can be known.

Why must anyone admit that? Scroll a few pages back and you'll see that you've already been provided with a link that demonstrates just how unreliable people are. At every turn of this discussion you have done little more than reassert the same argument that was handled in the post before it. No matter how many times you make the claim, no matter what you insist that people "must admit" you will be as wrong this time (and the next time) as you were the time before it (and the first time).