Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 5, 2016 at 3:15 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
(October 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but my guess would be about a half hour to 1 hour later (for the second plane at the trade center). I have never denied many of the things in such articles, and think that they should be considered when looking at testimony. Most of them, are about the ability to pick someone out of a line up, interrogator contamination and that memory is not like a video tape (hope they didn't spend too much money figuring out that one). However in a number of times asking, I haven't had anyone discuss anything about the particulars in those studies (I'm starting to think, that people didn't read past the titles, or give it any thought). How do we apply them to witness testimony? Also, I'm curious, how many people remember the second tower being brought down by a car bomb that day?
Well, I'll summarize what the video points out about the collapse of the second tower. Most people were glued to the coverage of the 9/11 attacks and will swear (myself included) seeing the second tower collapse an hour or two after the first. It is, with the exception of some of the people living in and around Manhattan, an impossibility. There was no footage broadcast of the second collapse until the next day. Millions upon millions of people believe, very clearly, something that could not have happened. This is just one of the weaknesses of testimonial evidence. I urge you to watch the video. It's truly frightening what can get someone convicted.
Interesting.... according to Wikipedia, the second tower collapsed at 10:59AM.... News coverage was still on going at this time. Did he mean, that the entirety of the collapse was not caught on camera? There also sites which states that it is he, who is incorrect in his facts such as here. https://www.metabunk.org/ted-talk-when-a...rong.t780/ That he is confusing the first tower being hit, with the second tower falling.
It also appears that yet again, an anecdote is being attempted to be used as evidence against anecdotes as evidence.
Quote:
(October 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Just to clarify, I do think that there are some interesting stories, of alien abductions. I have never checked into them very much. I did recently read a book "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men" by Hugh Ross. I think that there was times in the book where he tried to stretch things a little to far; but, there was some accounts which may supply a little evidence. However being skeptical, doesn't mean that I don't accept testimony, on such cases, but that I think critically about it and don't take things for granted. I don't just dismiss them as false, before I even look at the evidence (that is pseudo-skepticism).
This quote seems that you believe that myself and the others here have never taken a real look at the evidences for god(s). I can't speak for everyone, but I think I speak for most that we have. Most of us were believers at some point (or at least wanted very badly to believe) but the evidence simply never bore out the claims.
I think that you are switching topics here.... but it does appear, that you are at least warming up to testimony as evidence.
(November 6, 2016 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Interesting.... according to Wikipedia, the second tower collapsed at 10:59AM.... News coverage was still on going at this time. Did he mean, that the entirety of the collapse was not caught on camera? There also sites which states that it is he, who is incorrect in his facts such as here. https://www.metabunk.org/ted-talk-when-a...rong.t780/ That he is confusing the first tower being hit, with the second tower falling.
It also appears that yet again, an anecdote is being attempted to be used as evidence against anecdotes as evidence.
It impresses on me even further of the fallibility of testimony.
(November 6, 2016 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that you are switching topics here.... but it does appear, that you are at least warming up to testimony as evidence.
Warming to it? I wouldn't say that. I've never believed that testimony is useless as evidence, and if I've given that impression I apologize. I just don't believe, based on what we understand of human memory, that it's strong enough to base a firm conclusion on by itself. It's certailny useful as corroborative evidence (murder weapon, DNA evidence and eye-witness(es) placing the accused at the scene).
"I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should never be enough to convict someone of a murder unless you also have enough physical evidence tying "Joe" to the crime.
On the other hand, "I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should very much be enough to investigate "Joe" if a crime has been committed that matches the witnesses claim.
Human memory is too unreliable to trust, by itself, to come to a conclusion. Let me illustrate:
In 1998, I saw Jackie Joyner-Kersee win an Olympic medal at the summer games in New York City. That is, to the best of my knowledge, a statement of fact. It's what I remember. It never happened. New York City has never hosted the Olympic games. There were no summer games in 1998. Yet I clearly remember her winning an Olympic medal, in New York, in 1998.
It happens that it was the Goodwill games, which were indeed held in NYC in 1998. But, I only know that now because I just looked it up and had I been called upon before today to give testimony in a court of law whether Joyner-Kersee won an Olympic medal at the summer Olympic games in New York City, I would have sworn under oath that she did. It's likely that in the future I'll revert to that belief, forgetting once again that there ever were such a thing as the Goodwill games.
Moving beyond the fallibility of human memory, people can give horribly bad testimony even without faulty memories. Is the witness coerced? Is the witness even being honest? Is the witness a friend of the defendant or a foe? Is the witness being paid for their testimony? In short, does the witness have a motive to say what the prosecution (or the defense) wants them to say. These are just some of the things that should bar witness testimony from being the sole evidence to any conclusion.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
(November 6, 2016 at 4:18 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
(November 6, 2016 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Interesting.... according to Wikipedia, the second tower collapsed at 10:59AM.... News coverage was still on going at this time. Did he mean, that the entirety of the collapse was not caught on camera? There also sites which states that it is he, who is incorrect in his facts such as here. https://www.metabunk.org/ted-talk-when-a...rong.t780/ That he is confusing the first tower being hit, with the second tower falling.
It also appears that yet again, an anecdote is being attempted to be used as evidence against anecdotes as evidence.
It impresses on me even further of the fallibility of testimony.
Ok... in this case expert testimony.... I also have news for you.... humans make mistakes.... everything is fallible. The question is what do we do with that bit of information. Also, his mistake wasn't entirely wrong, and did resemble the facts.
Quote:
(November 6, 2016 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that you are switching topics here.... but it does appear, that you are at least warming up to testimony as evidence.
Warming to it? I wouldn't say that. I've never believed that testimony is useless as evidence, and if I've given that impression I apologize. I just don't believe, based on what we understand of human memory, that it's strong enough to base a firm conclusion on by itself. It's certailny useful as corroborative evidence (murder weapon, DNA evidence and eye-witness(es) placing the accused at the scene).
No need to apologize, there is a lot of different views being presented, and I can't keep track of who exactly is saying what.
Quote:"I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should never be enough to convict someone of a murder unless you also have enough physical evidence tying "Joe" to the crime.
On the other hand, "I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should very much be enough to investigate "Joe" if a crime has been committed that matches the witnesses claim.
Human memory is too unreliable to trust, by itself, to come to a conclusion. Let me illustrate:
In 1998, I saw Jackie Joyner-Kersee win an Olympic medal at the summer games in New York City. That is, to the best of my knowledge, a statement of fact. It's what I remember. It never happened. New York City has never hosted the Olympic games. There were no summer games in 1998. Yet I clearly remember her winning an Olympic medal, in New York, in 1998.
It happens that it was the Goodwill games, which were indeed held in NYC in 1998. But, I only know that now because I just looked it up and had I been called upon before today to give testimony in a court of law whether Joyner-Kersee won an Olympic medal at the summer Olympic games in New York City, I would have sworn under oath that she did. It's likely that in the future I'll revert to that belief, forgetting once again that there ever were such a thing as the Goodwill games.
Moving beyond the fallibility of human memory, people can give horribly bad testimony even without faulty memories. Is the witness coerced? Is the witness even being honest? Is the witness a friend of the defendant or a foe? Is the witness being paid for their testimony? In short, does the witness have a motive to say what the prosecution (or the defense) wants them to say. These are just some of the things that should bar witness testimony from being the sole evidence to any conclusion.
I would agree with your example here (of seeing someone leave after gunshots). Not because of the nature of the evidence (testimony), but; because of what it tells us. I think that if you are going to make your case, you need to do so, against a stronger example rather than a weak one. I also agree, with many of the things that you cited here. And we need to take them into consideration also. Contaminated evidence is always an issue.
(November 6, 2016 at 4:18 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
(November 6, 2016 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Interesting.... according to Wikipedia, the second tower collapsed at 10:59AM.... News coverage was still on going at this time. Did he mean, that the entirety of the collapse was not caught on camera? There also sites which states that it is he, who is incorrect in his facts such as here. https://www.metabunk.org/ted-talk-when-a...rong.t780/ That he is confusing the first tower being hit, with the second tower falling.
It also appears that yet again, an anecdote is being attempted to be used as evidence against anecdotes as evidence.
It impresses on me even further of the fallibility of testimony.
(November 6, 2016 at 1:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that you are switching topics here.... but it does appear, that you are at least warming up to testimony as evidence.
Warming to it? I wouldn't say that. I've never believed that testimony is useless as evidence, and if I've given that impression I apologize. I just don't believe, based on what we understand of human memory, that it's strong enough to base a firm conclusion on by itself. It's certailny useful as corroborative evidence (murder weapon, DNA evidence and eye-witness(es) placing the accused at the scene).
"I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should never be enough to convict someone of a murder unless you also have enough physical evidence tying "Joe" to the crime.
On the other hand, "I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should very much be enough to investigate "Joe" if a crime has been committed that matches the witnesses claim.
Human memory is too unreliable to trust, by itself, to come to a conclusion. Let me illustrate:
In 1998, I saw Jackie Joyner-Kersee win an Olympic medal at the summer games in New York City. That is, to the best of my knowledge, a statement of fact. It's what I remember. It never happened. New York City has never hosted the Olympic games. There were no summer games in 1998. Yet I clearly remember her winning an Olympic medal, in New York, in 1998.
It happens that it was the Goodwill games, which were indeed held in NYC in 1998. But, I only know that now because I just looked it up and had I been called upon before today to give testimony in a court of law whether Joyner-Kersee won an Olympic medal at the summer Olympic games in New York City, I would have sworn under oath that she did. It's likely that in the future I'll revert to that belief, forgetting once again that there ever were such a thing as the Goodwill games.
Moving beyond the fallibility of human memory, people can give horribly bad testimony even without faulty memories. Is the witness coerced? Is the witness even being honest? Is the witness a friend of the defendant or a foe? Is the witness being paid for their testimony? In short, does the witness have a motive to say what the prosecution (or the defense) wants them to say. These are just some of the things that should bar witness testimony from being the sole evidence to any conclusion.
I just wanted to add. I am asking questions, in order to provoke discussion. I do think that your position is probably the most reasonable of the others we have seen. I understand, that within philosophy, the epistemological value of testimony, is still a contested thing; and, is not a slam dunk in either direction. What stands in the favor of testimony, is that it is the most direct and exhaustive form of evidence in a good example. That is, it can provide you with more information than anything else. Also, many of the claims of fallibility can be applied to other forms of evidence as well. Against it, is many of the things that you have cited. However, what I think wins out, is that we all have to rely on the testimony of others, in a good many number of cases. We cannot get away from using testimony, even in arguing against it. Even in a court case, they call in expert testimony to inform us, they don't do the autopsy there in court.
(November 6, 2016 at 4:18 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
It impresses on me even further of the fallibility of testimony.
Warming to it? I wouldn't say that. I've never believed that testimony is useless as evidence, and if I've given that impression I apologize. I just don't believe, based on what we understand of human memory, that it's strong enough to base a firm conclusion on by itself. It's certailny useful as corroborative evidence (murder weapon, DNA evidence and eye-witness(es) placing the accused at the scene).
"I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should never be enough to convict someone of a murder unless you also have enough physical evidence tying "Joe" to the crime.
On the other hand, "I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should very much be enough to investigate "Joe" if a crime has been committed that matches the witnesses claim.
Human memory is too unreliable to trust, by itself, to come to a conclusion. Let me illustrate:
In 1998, I saw Jackie Joyner-Kersee win an Olympic medal at the summer games in New York City. That is, to the best of my knowledge, a statement of fact. It's what I remember. It never happened. New York City has never hosted the Olympic games. There were no summer games in 1998. Yet I clearly remember her winning an Olympic medal, in New York, in 1998.
It happens that it was the Goodwill games, which were indeed held in NYC in 1998. But, I only know that now because I just looked it up and had I been called upon before today to give testimony in a court of law whether Joyner-Kersee won an Olympic medal at the summer Olympic games in New York City, I would have sworn under oath that she did. It's likely that in the future I'll revert to that belief, forgetting once again that there ever were such a thing as the Goodwill games.
Moving beyond the fallibility of human memory, people can give horribly bad testimony even without faulty memories. Is the witness coerced? Is the witness even being honest? Is the witness a friend of the defendant or a foe? Is the witness being paid for their testimony? In short, does the witness have a motive to say what the prosecution (or the defense) wants them to say. These are just some of the things that should bar witness testimony from being the sole evidence to any conclusion.
I just wanted to add. I am asking questions, in order to provoke discussion. I do think that your position is probably the most reasonable of the others we have seen. I understand, that within philosophy, the epistemological value of testimony, is still a contested thing; and, is not a slam dunk in either direction. What stands in the favor of testimony, is that it is the most direct and exhaustive form of evidence in a good example. That is, it can provide you with more information than anything else. Also, many of the claims of fallibility can be applied to other forms of evidence as well. Against it, is many of the things that you have cited. However, what I think wins out, is that we all have to rely on the testimony of others, in a good many number of cases. We cannot get away from using testimony, even in arguing against it. Even in a court case, they call in expert testimony to inform us, they don't do the autopsy there in court.
RR, I think we agree (and correct me if I'm wrong) in principle that testimony can be used as evidence. Where we disagree is how the evidence is weighted. It seems that you view testimonial evidence as equal to physical evidence where I think it lags behind the physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence can be tainted just as testimony can be. But, we can re-test physical evidence (for that which needs testing), even years or in some cases decades after the events. Testimony, not so much. Memories fade, and worse, change over time. The powder residue in the pillow "Joe" used to muffle the shots, not so much. The powder residue in the shirt "Joe" was wearing, the video of him running from the store, the hairs that match his found at the scene etc...
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Knowing what I know about memory, it's doubtful I'll ever change my stance on this. Of course, if newer information about human memory comes to light or better technologies for verifying testimonies, I'm open to reconsideration.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
(November 4, 2016 at 8:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't think that's true, actually. I think most people who believe in the Christian God believe for one of three reasons:
1) They are raised in Christian families, and kids believe what they are told is true, with little or no ability to discern truth.
2) Some people are shocked (for example by the death of a loved one), such that their world view is damaged, putting them in an "open" state in which they aren't sure what's true, and therefore rely on the truth judgments of others.
3) Some people consciously choose to suspend disbelief in a kind of spiritual suicide-- "I hate myself and my life, and I want to be part of something that is good." Examples would be prison convicts.
Those all involve personal testimony and/or the Bible.
Quote:My point is that I don't think there's really anyone who is persuaded by the particular quality of evidence of either the Bible or its believers. I think the individual arrives at a state in which they suspend their disbelief. Now, be careful to note that I'm not saying the Bible is necessarily wrong, or that the religion is necessarily wrong-- I'm just saying that it is not through the acceptance of the weight of evidence by which ANY Christian becomes so.
My primary evidence for this is simple-- that in other geographic regions, children, grieving widows, or reformed criminals end up believing in Islam, or Hinduism or whatever. So it's not the religion itself which reaches out to sensible listeners, but rather eager listeners who absorb the religion that first appeals to them.
And those people accepted testimony, personal and/or historical, on Islam, Hinduism, or whatever.
I think I get, and agree with, your point that there is an emotional component to most people's belief. Few just conducted a cold, clinical analysis and came to believe. Still, they ended up where they got based in part on testimony, so saying that it can't be used as evidence is clearly wrong.
(November 5, 2016 at 3:48 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: You're asking for, and receiving, testimony, not anecdotes. Anecdotes, while occasionally useful for making a moral point or amusing your coworkers, are in no way, shape or form evidence of anything.
anecdote:
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.
testimony:
1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.
2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
3. open declaration or profession, as of faith.
4. Usually, testimonies. the precepts of God.
5. the Decalogue as inscribed on the two tables of the law, or the ark in which the tables were kept. Ex. 16:34; 25:16.
6. Archaic. a declaration of disapproval; protest.
It's folks like you, who conflate the two terms and treat them as if they're equal, that leads to the confusion found in this thread.
There's no such thing as anecdotal evidence, period. Testimony, despite it's flaws and failures, can be accepted as evidence. Anecdotes cannot.
"Don't buy a house in this neighborhood." or "Go to this college, I've heard it's really good for people studying that." are examples of testimony, even if one is hearsay, not anecdotes.
As the title of the thread is Anecdotal Evidence, you should have looked up anecdotal. It has a meaning beyond simply pertaining to anecdotes: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdotal?s=t
Quote:3. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
Mister Agenda Wrote:I know you've had Bayesian logic explained to you before, RR. Everything involved in a reported police shooting is incomparably more plausible than a claim of the supernatural, paranormal, or cryptids because such an incident is entirely composed of things that we KNOW exist and KNOW can happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be reasonably skeptical, we should be reasonably skeptical of everything, especially in a world where lots of people just make stuff up to stir the pot...but Bayesian logic determines what level of skepticism is reasonable, and you use it for everything else but your religion.
I am skeptical about your claim of Bayesian logic. It may be able to tell you what you are more likely to see today, or given no other information (or conflicting accounts), what someone else was more likely to have seen. However it doesn't follow, that because something is more common, that it more likely occurred vs the less common option, especially when there is evidence for the latter.
How common it is, is not the point. It's what is KNOWN to be true by any normal person: cops exist, bullets and guns exist, cops shoot people sometimes, cops shoot the wrong people some times; these are facts. They are known. If there had never been a police shooting of a civilian ever, one would have a degree of plausibility for the claim a cop shot an innocent civilian even if, up to this point, only the first two things were known; since the rest of it does not contradict in any way what we know to be possible.
RoadRunner79 Wrote:Also, please support you claim, that I use it for everything else but my religion.
More of a charitable supposition than a claim. If you're claiming to be irrational in other areas of your life, I'm happy to take your word for it.
(November 6, 2016 at 9:11 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
(November 6, 2016 at 5:43 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I just wanted to add. I am asking questions, in order to provoke discussion. I do think that your position is probably the most reasonable of the others we have seen. I understand, that within philosophy, the epistemological value of testimony, is still a contested thing; and, is not a slam dunk in either direction. What stands in the favor of testimony, is that it is the most direct and exhaustive form of evidence in a good example. That is, it can provide you with more information than anything else. Also, many of the claims of fallibility can be applied to other forms of evidence as well. Against it, is many of the things that you have cited. However, what I think wins out, is that we all have to rely on the testimony of others, in a good many number of cases. We cannot get away from using testimony, even in arguing against it. Even in a court case, they call in expert testimony to inform us, they don't do the autopsy there in court.
RR, I think we agree (and correct me if I'm wrong) in principle that testimony can be used as evidence. Where we disagree is how the evidence is weighted. It seems that you view testimonial evidence as equal to physical evidence where I think it lags behind the physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence can be tainted just as testimony can be. But, we can re-test physical evidence (for that which needs testing), even years or in some cases decades after the events. Testimony, not so much. Memories fade, and worse, change over time. The powder residue in the pillow "Joe" used to muffle the shots, not so much. The powder residue in the shirt "Joe" was wearing, the video of him running from the store, the hairs that match his found at the scene etc...
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Knowing what I know about memory, it's doubtful I'll ever change my stance on this. Of course, if newer information about human memory comes to light or better technologies for verifying testimonies, I'm open to reconsideration.
You are very close.... I wouldn't use terms, such as greater than or equal to, in terms of categories of evidence. For one evidence often compounds, and what may be individually weak, is stronger together. It also depends on the circumstances surrounding the evidence. DNA may be very weak in on circumstance, and very strong in another.
I do have a question, that I am dying to ask though.... are you relying on your memory, in order to judge against it? For instance, should I trust your memory of the anecdote you told about the summer olympics in NYC, or await for DNA evidence, or something I can put in a test tube?
RoadRunner79 Wrote:I am skeptical about your claim of Bayesian logic. It may be able to tell you what you are more likely to see today, or given no other information (or conflicting accounts), what someone else was more likely to have seen. However it doesn't follow, that because something is more common, that it more likely occurred vs the less common option, especially when there is evidence for the latter.
How common it is, is not the point. It's what is KNOWN to be true by any normal person: cops exist, bullets and guns exist, cops shoot people sometimes, cops shoot the wrong people some times; these are facts. They are known. If there had never been a police shooting of a civilian ever, one would have a degree of plausibility for the claim a cop shot an innocent civilian even if, up to this point, only the first two things were known; since the rest of it does not contradict in any way what we know to be possible.
How do you know that these "facts" are possible? I personally have never seen a cop shoot an unarmed man (or anyone for that matter). Shouldn't you need to provide evidence for the case, you are attempting to make? Is it only what you have seen, that you consider possible?
