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!
(August 3, 2017 at 2:30 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Eyewitness testimony not good enough?
I wouldn't consider a vague claim, as witness testimony. Witness testimony is about sharing what was seen, heard, or otherwise experienced (smells, touch... etc) The judgement of that information is still up to the one who it is transmitted to. He didn't give any information, other than he thinks I'm a liar. The basis for that conclusion is yet un-evidenced.
Of course, I was assuming that it was something in recent context and immediately pertinent as well.
I would consider witness testimony a "vague claim" right until it is supported by evidence. especially when the testimony is about things that go against the usual way nature works.
My wife may say "I saw your friend down town today" and I may think this is likely as my friend has been known to visit the town BUT my wife has mistaken a man in a similar jacket for me so is not the most reliable witness. I would have to ask my friend if he was in town at the same time to verify it.
August 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm (This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(August 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm)chimp3 Wrote: What if the eyewitness testimony contradicted the physical evidence to the benefit of the assailant? Let's say the chair has the supposed assailants fingerprints, the victim has a gash on his head, and the accused has the victims blood splatter on his shirt. However, 11 unrelated eyewitnesses can place the accused at a place and time that makes his participation in the crime impossible. Does eyewitness testimony have any validity then? Perhaps the accused touched the chair the day before, he helped the victim who had a bloody nose. The assumed victim has a personal beef with the accused.
I think that it can. The issue is that that the physical evidence only tells you a few things; from which, you have to connect the dots. Here it tells you that the accused had touched the chair, has some motive (note this isn't physical evidence), and was in contact with the victims blood to get it on his shirt. There could be issues, depending on the details of the confessions in your scenario, for instance, do the witnesses statements testify that it was definitely the accused who was at a different place at the time, or just someone who looks very much like him.
(August 5, 2017 at 6:19 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Road, out of genuine curiousity, if this discussion has nothing to do with biblical claims, then what? Do you just have a personal, pet interest in the subject? Are you perhaps considering law school? 😉
It is a claim, that I find odd and out of the norm, which I have mostly run into only while talking to atheist. I had tried to discuss it in the past; however as it was here, that can prove difficult, with people who appear more intent to disrupt discussion rather than participate in it, and appeal to motives and such. This is a principle which has implications outside of the God or religion and so I wanted to investigate the reasoning behind it further. I think that in some extreme versions, it is outright untenable, and leads to absurdity.
However as sometimes is the case, our views and/or definitions we are starting from; may lead to misunderstandings, which make discussion difficult. We are arguing about the directions, when we are starting from different locations, and wondering why they don't match up. So this thread wasn't about discussion or debate, but about understanding what the view of others are more accurately and how they are applied. And possibly to find out how popular this view was (among this generally atheist community); although I don't know if there was enough participation to get a good idea on that.
In the past, the discussion has been about looking at what the others arguments where for this claim (and giving my own). It was about the why, this thread was more about the what is believed. Part of an ongoing attempt to look at this rationally and to see if there is good reason, and if I may be wrong in my views. To have a moment of introspection, and perhaps encourage the same in others. Just two different ways of going about that. Also, for those who where questioning the placement of this thread under the life sciences category. I had basically come down between psychology and philosophy. Seeing as how this wasn't about debating the epistemology of testimony, it seemed like a social science inquiry more aptly applied.
(August 6, 2017 at 4:49 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:
(August 3, 2017 at 3:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I wouldn't consider a vague claim, as witness testimony. Witness testimony is about sharing what was seen, heard, or otherwise experienced (smells, touch... etc) The judgement of that information is still up to the one who it is transmitted to. He didn't give any information, other than he thinks I'm a liar. The basis for that conclusion is yet un-evidenced.
Of course, I was assuming that it was something in recent context and immediately pertinent as well.
I would consider witness testimony a "vague claim" right until it is supported by evidence. especially when the testimony is about things that go against the usual way nature works.
My wife may say "I saw your friend down town today" and I may think this is likely as my friend has been known to visit the town BUT my wife has mistaken a man in a similar jacket for me so is not the most reliable witness. I would have to ask my friend if he was in town at the same time to verify it.
Witness testimony is not evidence on its own.
Yes, it can be vague. But can also be specific. What if she had talked to this friend and could verify that it definitely was him.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(August 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: [quote pid='1597668' dateline='1501964010']
(August 6, 2017 at 4:49 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I would consider witness testimony a "vague claim" right until it is supported by evidence. especially when the testimony is about things that go against the usual way nature works.
My wife may say "I saw your friend down town today" and I may think this is likely as my friend has been known to visit the town BUT my wife has mistaken a man in a similar jacket for me so is not the most reliable witness. I would have to ask my friend if he was in town at the same time to verify it.
Witness testimony is not evidence on its own.
Yes, it can be vague. But can also be specific. What if she had talked to this friend and could verify that it definitely was him.
[/quote]
You know what I would tend to believe her in that case, but its a mundane claim and I know her and trust her and I can verify it with my friend at a later date anyway. But if I don't know the witnesses, the claims are not mundane and there is no way to verify them then I would hold out for more.
August 6, 2017 at 5:11 pm (This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm by LadyForCamus.)
In
It is a claim, that I find odd and out of the norm, which I have mostly run into only while talking to atheist. I had tried to discuss it in the past; however as it was here, that can prove difficult, with people who appear more intent to disrupt discussion rather than participate in it, and appeal to motives and such. This is a principle which has implications outside of the God or religion and so I wanted to investigate the reasoning behind it further. I think that in some extreme versions, it is outright untenable, and leads to absurdity.
However as sometimes is the case, our views and/or definitions we are starting from; may lead to misunderstandings, which make discussion difficult. We are arguing about the directions, when we are starting from different locations, and wondering why they don't match up. So this thread wasn't about discussion or debate, but about understanding what the view of others are more accurately and how they are applied. And possibly to find out how popular this view was (among this generally atheist community); although I don't know if there was enough participation to get a good idea on that.
In the past, the discussion has been about looking at what the others arguments where for this claim (and giving my own). It was about the why, this thread was more about the what is believed. Part of an ongoing attempt to look at this rationally and to see if there is good reason, and if I may be wrong in my views. To have a moment of introspection, and perhaps encourage the same in others. Just two different ways of going about that. Also, for those who where questioning the placement of this thread under the life sciences category. I had basically come down between psychology and philosophy. Seeing as how this wasn't about debating the epistemology of testimony, it seemed like a social science inquiry more aptly applied.
What claim? That eye witness testimony is not sufficient evidence to believe certain truth claims? I mean, what difference does it make whether we call it 'evidence' or not, anyway? Arguing for a label doesn't automatically legitimize or bolster the content of what you're labeling. I asked Steve this question in his thread: what's the practical difference between lousy evidence and no evidence at all?
Incidentally, I don't think anyone in this thread has made the assertion (that you seem to be implying) that eyewitness testimony is useless. That's not my position, at least. But, I don't think there is any way to honestly follow this discussion through without ending back at claims of the supernatural, do you?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(August 5, 2017 at 12:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It occurs to me, that perhaps there is a difference in locale. Frankly the extent to which some post modern ideas are being followed to day, simply amazes me. In the US, the police are going to take statements in the investigation, not just as a stab in the dark, to find other physical corroboration, but as actual evidence in determining the truth of the matter. Further the court may call a witness to testify to what they saw or heard. Is this different where ever you are at?
I'm also curious, because when having a discussion involving the definition of something. I often look up the definition just to ensure that I'm not thinking of some odd offshoot or distortion of the word. Did anyone else do this?
Nope, there's nothing wrong with witness evidence in some cases, given that the witness seems qualified to understand the thing being asked about, and no apparent ulterior motive in presenting his/her observations.
It is a claim, that I find odd and out of the norm, which I have mostly run into only while talking to atheist. I had tried to discuss it in the past; however as it was here, that can prove difficult, with people who appear more intent to disrupt discussion rather than participate in it, and appeal to motives and such. This is a principle which has implications outside of the God or religion and so I wanted to investigate the reasoning behind it further. I think that in some extreme versions, it is outright untenable, and leads to absurdity.
However as sometimes is the case, our views and/or definitions we are starting from; may lead to misunderstandings, which make discussion difficult. We are arguing about the directions, when we are starting from different locations, and wondering why they don't match up. So this thread wasn't about discussion or debate, but about understanding what the view of others are more accurately and how they are applied. And possibly to find out how popular this view was (among this generally atheist community); although I don't know if there was enough participation to get a good idea on that.
In the past, the discussion has been about looking at what the others arguments where for this claim (and giving my own). It was about the why, this thread was more about the what is believed. Part of an ongoing attempt to look at this rationally and to see if there is good reason, and if I may be wrong in my views. To have a moment of introspection, and perhaps encourage the same in others. Just two different ways of going about that. Also, for those who where questioning the placement of this thread under the life sciences category. I had basically come down between psychology and philosophy. Seeing as how this wasn't about debating the epistemology of testimony, it seemed like a social science inquiry more aptly applied.
What claim? That eye witness testimony is not sufficient evidence to believe certain truth claims? I mean, what difference does it make whether we call it 'evidence' or not, anyway? Arguing for a label doesn't automatically legitimize or bolster the content of what you're labeling. I asked Steve this question in his thread: what's the practical difference between lousy evidence and no evidence at all?
Incidentally, I don't think anyone in this thread has made the assertion (that you seem to be implying) that eyewitness testimony is useless. That's not my position, at least. But, I don't think there is any way to honestly follow this discussion through without ending back at claims of the supernatural, do you?
It does seem that quite a few are saying that testimony is not evidence, if that is not what they mean, then perhaps they should re-consider what they are saying. And I do realize that some are only saying that it is evidence but categorically insufficient on it's own. Which would be handled differently when discussing/debating the topic. It's not just about slapping a label on it and being done. Evidence is a category, that describes that which falls under it's definition (and perhaps that definition needs to be discussed as well. And I think it means something when someone applies or denies that description. If you don't have meaning behind what you are saying, then what is the point?
I think that there is a difference between lousy evidence and no evidence (hence the different description prefixing it. But that might depend on what you mean by lousy. Anyways, I think that any discussion about the supernatural, is a long ways down the road for where we are now. And is really going to be closer to the discussion about extraordinary claims.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
August 6, 2017 at 8:25 pm (This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 8:39 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 6, 2017 at 7:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(August 6, 2017 at 5:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In
It is a claim, that I find odd and out of the norm, which I have mostly run into only while talking to atheist. I had tried to discuss it in the past; however as it was here, that can prove difficult, with people who appear more intent to disrupt discussion rather than participate in it, and appeal to motives and such. This is a principle which has implications outside of the God or religion and so I wanted to investigate the reasoning behind it further. I think that in some extreme versions, it is outright untenable, and leads to absurdity.
However as sometimes is the case, our views and/or definitions we are starting from; may lead to misunderstandings, which make discussion difficult. We are arguing about the directions, when we are starting from different locations, and wondering why they don't match up. So this thread wasn't about discussion or debate, but about understanding what the view of others are more accurately and how they are applied. And possibly to find out how popular this view was (among this generally atheist community); although I don't know if there was enough participation to get a good idea on that.
In the past, the discussion has been about looking at what the others arguments where for this claim (and giving my own). It was about the why, this thread was more about the what is believed. Part of an ongoing attempt to look at this rationally and to see if there is good reason, and if I may be wrong in my views. To have a moment of introspection, and perhaps encourage the same in others. Just two different ways of going about that. Also, for those who where questioning the placement of this thread under the life sciences category. I had basically come down between psychology and philosophy. Seeing as how this wasn't about debating the epistemology of testimony, it seemed like a social science inquiry more aptly applied.
What claim? That eye witness testimony is not sufficient evidence to believe certain truth claims? I mean, what difference does it make whether we call it 'evidence' or not, anyway? Arguing for a label doesn't automatically legitimize or bolster the content of what you're labeling. I asked Steve this question in his thread: what's the practical difference between lousy evidence and no evidence at all?
Incidentally, I don't think anyone in this thread has made the assertion (that you seem to be implying) that eyewitness testimony is useless. That's not my position, at least. But, I don't think there is any way to honestly follow this discussion through without ending back at claims of the supernatural, do you?
It does seem that quite a few are saying that testimony is not evidence, if that is not what they mean, then perhaps they should re-consider what they are saying. And I do realize that some are only saying that it is evidence but categorically insufficient on it's own. Which would be handled differently when discussing/debating the topic. It's not just about slapping a label on it and being done. Evidence is a category, that describes that which falls under it's definition (and perhaps that definition needs to be discussed as well. And I think it means something when someone applies or denies that description. If you don't have meaning behind what you are saying, then what is the point?
I think that there is a difference between lousy evidence and no evidence (hence the different description prefixing it. But that might depend on what you mean by lousy. Anyways, I think that any discussion about the supernatural, is a long ways down the road for where we are now. And is really going to be closer to the discussion about extraordinary claims.
I said practical difference, though. In other words, as an example of what I mean, if I am sitting on a jury for a man facing the death penalty, I (and I think/hope most rational folks) am going to say, "not guilty" whether there is no evidence or poor/insufficient evidence of his guilt.
I don't think we can have an intellectually honest discussion about the value of testimony as evidence without discussing extraordinary claims. I mean, that was the whole point of Steve's thread - do extraordinary claims demand a higher degree of evidence in order to be rationally accepted as true? My 'testimony' to my husband that I put our baby to bed at 8 is certainly sufficient evidence to him for the claim I've made. Now, if I said I put our baby down at 8, and he grew horns and sang Yankee Doodle in German out of his butt-hole...he may not accept that claim on my testimony alone, lol.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
If some people were distracted and they still testified that you "maliciously injured" the guy, how is their testimony on a par with those who were paying attention, and how do the cops know which people were paying attention and which were distracted?
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
August 6, 2017 at 9:23 pm (This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 9:25 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(August 6, 2017 at 8:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:
(August 6, 2017 at 7:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It does seem that quite a few are saying that testimony is not evidence, if that is not what they mean, then perhaps they should re-consider what they are saying. And I do realize that some are only saying that it is evidence but categorically insufficient on it's own. Which would be handled differently when discussing/debating the topic. It's not just about slapping a label on it and being done. Evidence is a category, that describes that which falls under it's definition (and perhaps that definition needs to be discussed as well. And I think it means something when someone applies or denies that description. If you don't have meaning behind what you are saying, then what is the point?
I think that there is a difference between lousy evidence and no evidence (hence the different description prefixing it. But that might depend on what you mean by lousy. Anyways, I think that any discussion about the supernatural, is a long ways down the road for where we are now. And is really going to be closer to the discussion about extraordinary claims.
I said practical difference, though. In other words, as an example of what I mean, if I am sitting on a jury for a man facing the death penalty, I (and I think/hope most rational folks) am going to say, "not guilty" whether there is no evidence or poor/insufficient evidence of his guilt.
I don't think we can have an intellectually honest discussion about the value of testimony as evidence without discussing extraordinary claims. I mean, that was the whole point of Steve's thread - do extraordinary claims demand a higher degree of evidence in order to be rationally accepted as true? My 'testimony' to my husband that I put our baby to bed at 8 is certainly sufficient evidence to him for the claim I've made. Now, if I said I put our baby down at 8, and he grew horns and sang Yankee Doodle in German out of his butt-hole...he may not accept that claim on my testimony alone, lol.
I would agree, as a conviction of belief, poor evidence, is going to have the same results (whatever form that evidence takes). And as I said, I think the extraordinary claims discussion is different. Shifting the goal posts from the general principles.
(August 6, 2017 at 8:52 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: If some people were distracted and they still testified that you "maliciously injured" the guy, how is their testimony on a par with those who were paying attention, and how do the cops know which people were paying attention and which were distracted?
The way I was picturing it, they did not see the event, but seen immediately after. However I agree, that it could change based on the details.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
