Evidence to Convict?

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1596053' dateline='1501690966']


I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't.  I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.

[/quote]

Witness testimony is nothing by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Apparently lots of people saw this thing that did not happen.

[Astonished]

[quote pid='1596053' dateline='1501690966']


I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't.  I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.

Witness testimony is nothing by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Apparently lots of people saw this thing that did not happen.
[/quote]

There is no fucking debate. It's objectively unreliable as a form of evidence. Period.

[paulpablo]

It is evidence.

Even in a case which seems as clear cut as that though I don't see it as impossible that someone could cast reasonable doubt on that evidence.

[Astreja]

I think the presence of an actual injured person, and your fingerprints on the chair, would be better evidence to convict. This is where the Jesus myth differs from your scenario -- No evidence for the injured person, no fingerprints, no chair.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't see it as a categorical hierarchy.  To me, it depends on the circumstances, and how well the individual or collective evidence makes something evident. 
It's really on a case by case basis.  Normally, if we are only talking about a single point of evidence, I don't consider that very good. Different types of evidence can have different limitations, different false results, that may need to be accounted for, and different ways to make sure they are handled properly.

I didn't want to make this thread a debate about witness testimony, and I still don't.  I have given my views before, and made arguments as to why I think it should not be abandoned as evidence. If you would like to make a new thread, I will likely join and discuss.

Are you aware-or at least able to understand-that this looks like you're trying to make other evidence look as fallible and unreliable as testimony? That this comes across as an incredible, unwarranted and propaganda-esque dismissal of the value of any evidence at all, just so that you can make it seem as though the worst sort of evidence (the only sort the scriptures have going for them) is still on a comparable footing with every other type? Can you see how, in our shoes, this is what it sounds like you're doing here? That this may be one of the reasons it's so difficult to take anything you say seriously because it's simultaneously maximally ignorant and maximally dishonest?

As I said, I'm not going to debate this here (that is not the purpose).  If you like make a new thread of your own.  You can test my "ignorance", and examine my reasons all you like there. 

However, if you are going to question my character and accuse me of dishonesty simply because I disagree.  I think that is a reflection of you more than myself.  Now there could be an inconsistency in how I act vs what I say I believe, you can try to expose that.  But I always try to answer honestly.

[Astonished]

Are you aware-or at least able to understand-that this looks like you're trying to make other evidence look as fallible and unreliable as testimony? That this comes across as an incredible, unwarranted and propaganda-esque dismissal of the value of any evidence at all, just so that you can make it seem as though the worst sort of evidence (the only sort the scriptures have going for them) is still on a comparable footing with every other type? Can you see how, in our shoes, this is what it sounds like you're doing here? That this may be one of the reasons it's so difficult to take anything you say seriously because it's simultaneously maximally ignorant and maximally dishonest?

As I said, I'm not going to debate this here (that is not the purpose).  If you like make a new thread of your own.  You can test my "ignorance", and examine my reasons all you like there. 

However, if you are going to question my character and accuse me of dishonesty simply because I disagree.  I think that is a reflection of you more than myself.  Now there could be an inconsistency in how I act vs what I say I believe, you can try to expose that.  But I always try to answer honestly.

Oh, you're at least consistent in your ignorance and intransigence, that's not in dispute. I'm simply attempting to get you to really look at yourself in the mirror and understand that about yourself. That you are incapable of providing a good argument for anything because you're not willing or able to look at it from the outside in. If you continue to limit yourself to that worldview, you're going to continue to miss out on so much. So forget about the rest of us, just do that for yourself, exercise some critical reasoning, be ruthlessly scrutinizing of your own methodology, and you might just emancipate yourself.

But if this is what you have decided to use as your glass ceiling, whatever, I'm tired of looking at how it's making your face all scrunched-up against it.

[RoadRunner79]

As I said, I'm not going to debate this here (that is not the purpose).  If you like make a new thread of your own.  You can test my "ignorance", and examine my reasons all you like there. 

However, if you are going to question my character and accuse me of dishonesty simply because I disagree.  I think that is a reflection of you more than myself.  Now there could be an inconsistency in how I act vs what I say I believe, you can try to expose that.  But I always try to answer honestly.

Oh, you're at least consistent in your ignorance and intransigence, that's not in dispute. I'm simply attempting to get you to really look at yourself in the mirror and understand that about yourself. That you are incapable of providing a good argument for anything because you're not willing or able to look at it from the outside in. If you continue to limit yourself to that worldview, you're going to continue to miss out on so much. So forget about the rest of us, just do that for yourself, exercise some critical reasoning, be ruthlessly scrutinizing of your own methodology, and you might just emancipate yourself.

But if this is what you have decided to use as your glass ceiling, whatever, I'm tired of looking at how it's making your face all scrunched-up against it.

So as I suggested, create a thread and discuss.... I'm willing to look at what you have to say, your evidence and reasoning; and to have a civil discussion about it.  Although I don't think it will be anything new.  And I ask that you would extend the same courtesy.  Perhaps we won't agree, but you can come to a better understanding of where I am coming from. 

I'm not going to entertain any more disruption of this post by your need to insult me.  This is the last time I am going to say it, so don't tell me; I'm not willing to look at other views, when I am inviting you to create a thread to do just that.  If your not really wanting to discuss, then I consider this just flaming and repeatedly trying to attack me and disrupt, in the guise of critical thinking.

---

It is evidence.

Even in a case which seems as clear cut as that though I don't see it as impossible that someone could cast reasonable doubt on that evidence.

I think that there is always possible doubt, however the question is if it reasonable.

[JackRussell]

A flawed analogy is, well...flawed.

[RoadRunner79]

A flawed analogy is, well...flawed.

Not making any analogy.   Just asking a question.  If you disagree, and want to add context... feel free to.

[Astonished]

Oh, you're at least consistent in your ignorance and intransigence, that's not in dispute. I'm simply attempting to get you to really look at yourself in the mirror and understand that about yourself. That you are incapable of providing a good argument for anything because you're not willing or able to look at it from the outside in. If you continue to limit yourself to that worldview, you're going to continue to miss out on so much. So forget about the rest of us, just do that for yourself, exercise some critical reasoning, be ruthlessly scrutinizing of your own methodology, and you might just emancipate yourself.

But if this is what you have decided to use as your glass ceiling, whatever, I'm tired of looking at how it's making your face all scrunched-up against it.

So as I suggested, create a thread and discuss.... I'm willing to look at what you have to say, your evidence and reasoning; and to have a civil discussion about it.  Although I don't think it will be anything new.  And I ask that you would extend the same courtesy.  Perhaps we won't agree, but you can come to a better understanding of where I am coming from. 

I'm not going to entertain any more disruption of this post by your need to insult me.  This is the last time I am going to say it, so don't tell me; I'm not willing to look at other views, when I am inviting you to create a thread to do just that.  If your not really wanting to discuss, then I consider this just flaming and repeatedly trying to attack me and disrupt, in the guise of critical thinking.

---

It is evidence.

Even in a case which seems as clear cut as that though I don't see it as impossible that someone could cast reasonable doubt on that evidence.

I think that there is always possible doubt, however the question is if it reasonable.

Just, answer me this: You didn't exactly respond to any of my objections, answer in a cohesive way any of the relevant questions I asked, and are continuing to dodge all of this despite YOUR bringing up the entire topic because of your fundamental misunderstanding of the validity (or lack thereof) of your favored mechanism of demonstrating things, so, why exactly suggest I go create a thread to do anything if you can't be bothered to produce any sort of defense for it in your own thread? And of course there's not going to be anything new, your case hasn't changed or advanced in two millennia.