Testimony is Evidence

[Minimalist]

I don't know of any studies that done specifically for the reliability of testimony (although while I don't have the means, I could think of a few examples).

I got 393,000 hits on Google in .54 seconds.



https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/...iable.html

Is Eyewitness Testimony Inherently Unreliable?

Even after hearing the statistics, we are reluctant to distrust a sincere eyewitness, but decades of research show that memory is neither precise nor fixed. For instance, we would expect a moment of high stress to focus the mind and sharpen recall, but the opposite is true. Violence, stress, and the presence of a weapon during an incident actually weaken memory. Racial differences between the witness and the suspect can impair identifications. Unconscious transference, or confusing someone seen in one place with someone seen in another place, is common. Identification can also be impaired by how long the witness is exposed to the suspect, the delay between the incident and the identification, and post-event information, such as feedback from the police or other witnesses.

[LadyForCamus]

Ya know RR...TGB and myself were two of very few people left giving you the benefit of the doubt, and trying to honestly engage with you, and you've now burned both of those bridges. What does that indicate of you and your discussion tactics?

[Astonished]

You know what's fucking hysterical? The asshole behind this thread claims to love 12 Angry Men and yet the biggest thing in that movie is when both of the key components of the case, namely eyewitness testimony, were proven to be wrong. AND one of the jurors got chided for just going along with the other guys in changing his mind about the initial guilty vote even if he wasn't convinced. Even if you're right, if you don't have the courage of your convictions or a good reason, it's no different than accidentally guessing right on a multiple choice test.

[RoadRunner79]

Ya know RR...TGB and myself were two of very few people left giving you the benefit of the doubt, and trying to honestly engage with you, and you've now burned both of those bridges. What does that indicate of you and your discussion tactics?

How have I burned a bridge with you? It's not like I'm accusing you of lying or dishonesty every other post.

[Astonished]

Ya know RR...TGB and myself were two of very few people left giving you the benefit of the doubt, and trying to honestly engage with you, and you've now burned both of those bridges.  What does that indicate of you and your discussion tactics?

How have I burned a bridge with you?  It's not like I'm accusing you of lying or dishonesty every other post.

You're accusing others of strawmanning when that's your default fucking strategy (classic theistic projection of one's own faults onto others) and refusing to answer the majority of questions being put to you. What the goddamn fucking fuck do you expect but to burn bridges with your conversation partners when all you do is repeat the same refuted points and derail any attempt to further the discussion just because it hurts the point you're failing to make?

[LadyForCamus]

By showing that it is objective, rather than subjective.

By showing what is objective?  The testimony?  What are you talking about?

---

Ya know RR...TGB and myself were two of very few people left giving you the benefit of the doubt, and trying to honestly engage with you, and you've now burned both of those bridges.  What does that indicate of you and your discussion tactics?

How have I burned a bridge with you?  It's not like I'm accusing you of lying or dishonesty every other post.

You burn bridges when you use tactics and devices to direct a conversation, rather than genuinely engage with people.  Eventually, people get tired of giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[bennyboy]

Ya know RR...TGB and myself were two of very few people left giving you the benefit of the doubt, and trying to honestly engage with you, and you've now burned both of those bridges.  What does that indicate of you and your discussion tactics?

How have I burned a bridge with you?  It's not like I'm accusing you of lying or dishonesty every other post.

You have to understand that in this thread and others, people took you seriously for several posts, became dissatisfied with the way you interacted with them, and then began to use increasingly insulting rhetoric toward you.  It's not like you just came in and the Big Bad Atheists didn't give you a chance, and just verbally abused you without cause.

I've asked you repeatedly what is so motivating about the subject of testimony that you are willing to engage in multiple pages in multiple threads.  If you ask me why I'm interested in MY OP threads, I'll tell you all about it-- probably more than  you want to wade through.  So look-- at some point you need a point.  Testimony isn't a particularly difficult, deep or even interesting philosophical subject, so unless you have AN ACTUAL IDEA about it that is in any way original or interesting, then what are we doing here?  Just practicing our typing skills?

[Amarok]

Most have given this fool chances without count you can only do the same bullshit over and over till people catch on

[SteveII]

A person can absolutely be wrong in their recollection. But it does not follow that if a person could be wrong in his recollection that all personal testimony is unreliable. It only follows that testimony could be unreliable. The other side of the coin that you did not mention was context--which is inseparable from the testimony and can weigh heavily in the assessment of the testimony. 

Your premise and conclusion:

1. A person's recollection could be wrong
2. Therefore all testimony is unreliable.

No. Intended or not, this is straw.  It goes more like this:

1. Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable.  (Innocent misremembering due to the falliable nature of human memory, as I mentioned in the post you quoted above, is only one of many factors that contribute to erroneous witness testimony.)

2. Therefore, I and any other rational person, in the interest of reason and truth, should wait for corroborating evidence before believing any claim beyond the most mundane, where being wrong in that belief carries little to no serious consequences.  And, especially before believing claims of the "supernatural" variety, which carry far-reaching and deep-seeded consequences such as the defining of one's world views, and the ways in which we value our lives, and the lives of others.

There's that relevant context you were talking about.  😉

I see the problem now.

1. "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable." You are taking all witness testimony as a whole and applying to it the fact that some testimony is unreliable. This is an excellent example of the fallacy of composition. This premise is obviously fallacious because some amount of testimony is reliable. 

2. I have no problem with this. However often the only corroborating evidence is more testimony. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, billions of events every day happen where there is no lasting physical evidence that can be examined. 

3. Your syllogism collapsed because the first premise is a fallacy. So we are back to mine -- tell me where I erred:

     1' A witness's recollection could be wrong
     2' The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
     3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
     4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context

[Thumpalumpacus]

What's remarkable is that RR's "faith" is pegged to the validity of testimony -- because without the testimony of the empty tomb, his belief in the Resurrection would seem to be shaky indeed.