Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

It's not a false dichotomy.  The choice is A or !A, which is the law of identity.  Now if you mean, that all testimony is not evidence, or not good evidence.

*sigh*

Fine.  Can we agree that testimony is not equally sufficient? for all types of claims?  How does that sit with you?

I think that it depends on what you mean. I don't think that if I where testify as to what I had for lunch today,it is sufficient at all, as evidence for the moon landing. I think that the sufficiency of any evidence depends on how well it demonstrates the proposition or belief to be valid.

By the way, are you talking about all testimony, or just witness testimony.

[LadyForCamus]

Well, slap my ass and call me Suzie!  Dragons are real!

Heleeeer Suzie!

... can I see your dragon?

Oh, it's not my Dragon.  It's Thump's.  

...you still wanna see it?  😏

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think that I understand where you disagree, with the etymology literal meaning of "bringing something into view"  or perhaps you are not disagreeing.   The modern dictionary definitions I gave, I would think match up with this (I believe) more figurative sourcing of the word.  Or are you saying to be evidence, that you need to literally bring it into the view of a person?  I would think from your examples, this is not the case.  In your example of a believed roman coin, I would agree, that a non-expert, can tell you what they seen, and why they think it is a roman coin.  An expert may be able to tell you more, or even be able to give information from the witness description if it is good enough.  

I would also agree, that the testimony is about what was seen, heard or otherwise experienced and not the interpretation of those things.  I do think that people are free to think for themselves (or perhaps not think if that be the case).


I'm a little disappointed with you here.  My image of you, is of someone who thinks through things, and I would have thought that you might have given me the benefit of the doubt in doing the same, rather than jumped to imagined motivations, and where you think I'm trying to go with this.  I'm only looking to discuss testimony, as I find that many atheist seem to make strong objections, I find are unique to the group.  I may start thinking, that as much as they bring up God in the discussion, and avoid discussion, that it is more of an issue for them, then for me.   But also, I think that you are thinking of a different sense of the word testimony, sometimes used in the sense of a religious personal (not shared by others) experience.  I am not;  I'm talking about witness testimony as described above.  If testimony is evidence, it value as evidence, and the reasoning behind these views.

---

I would agree, that context matters.  For one example, I think that there is a difference, between what someone see's a distance away across a dimly lit parking lot.  Verses a few feet away, in a well lit room. The time and how well they seen whatever it was, also makes a difference. I also don't disagree, with a number of the flaws that are brought up concerning witness testimony, and the studies preformed about it.   I just don't agree, that this makes it not evidence, or makes it so unreliable as to outweigh it's strengths.

---

I would agree.  I often look for corroborating evidence.  Which could include other independent witnesses.

I also think that people lying is a problem with all testimony, which may include expert testimony, or pretty much anything anyone else tells you.  Physical evidence can also lie.  Either indirectly by giving a false impression of the truth (more a problem with interpretation or hasty conclusions, than the evidence itself lying).  Or someone can place physical evidence in order to deceive.

Indeed they can. Which is why it's usually best to get as many pieces as possible. It's just that testimony alone is never enough.

Really I cited a couple of pages (each containing multiple pages) of lawyers who disagree with you.  You may also want to look up on historical method, which discusses testimony as evidence quite a bit.

However, I'm less concerned with you repeating your claim, as I am more concerned with why or your reasoning.

[Ravenshire]

Nope the only but worst possible evidence will be testimonial evidence . This is a flaw to be overcome not embraced.

Nah. The worst possible is hearsay. It's so bad it's only allowed in court under special circumstances. Yet it's all Steve-o has to hang his hat on.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that the sufficiency of any evidence depends on how well it demonstrates the proposition or belief to be valid.  

Who's to say I cannot see an invisible dragon?

[Ravenshire]

Indeed they can. Which is why it's usually best to get as many pieces as possible. It's just that testimony alone is never enough.

Really I cited a couple of pages (each containing multiple pages) of lawyers who disagree with you.  You may also want to look up on historical method, which discusses testimony as evidence quite a bit.

However, I'm less concerned with you repeating your claim, as I am more concerned with why or your reasoning.

And it's been pointed out to you, with a link to the article, that jurisdictions are starting to caution jurists about witness testimony. Historic precedent isn't holding up well in the reality beyond your delusions.

[LadyForCamus]

It's just one big circle with RR...

[Ravenshire]

I think that it depends on what you mean.  I don't think that if I where testify as to what I had for lunch today,it is sufficient at all, as evidence for the moon landing.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just that stupid? No one is claiming that testimony is bad because testimony for one thing doesn't fit all things.

I think that the sufficiency of any evidence depends on how well it demonstrates the proposition or belief to be valid.

Do you? Even if the witness is mistaken? Or lying? Or falsely remembering? Because it demonstrates the proposition well, it's valid?

I know some people who can convincingly "demonstrate the proposition" that you should buy their bridge. You want to buy?

[bennyboy]

This thread's stretching out pretty long, and I'm grumpy today (a headcold I think). So let's get a little nasty.

I'm willing to testify that Jesus Christ not only took my penis into his mouth, but did so with vigor and obvious enjoyment. I'm willing to bet that I could find others who would also attest that the Messiah happily and with great delight gobbled their knobs.

If I can get more Jesus-polishes-flesh-helmets testimonial than you can get Jesus-saves-puppies testimonial, would you, RR, accept that there is more evidence for Jesus cock-gobbling than for Jesus saving cute little puppies?

[Amarok]

You may also want to look up on historical method, which discusses testimony as evidence quite a bit.

I'm well aware of the method and why it's also highly skeptical of testimony . And does I great deal to not have to rely soley on it . Or negate it's well known weakness . Well idiots like you and Neo treat it like they just blindly accept the testimony as gospel . So it's you who needs to learn the method .