Testimony is Evidence

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well it was wing night, and I've had a few beers... so I apologize if it I wasn't quite clear.

Mmmmm...beer. Anything particularly tasty and refreshing?

[Mister Agenda]

By showing that it is objective, rather than subjective.

How might one go about that?

---

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. 

She didn't say that testimony is unreliable, therefore no testimony is reliable. Her point was that testimony is unreliable, therefore you shouldn't convict someone based solely on testimony, without corroborating evidence.

[Astonished]

Testimony is universally subject to all of those drawbacks at all times. Love when asshat theists try to say the other side uses fallacies, they always fuck it up. You'd think after being called out on using them themselves so often they'd at least do a little better job, but no. Like I said, even if someone is correct, without being able to corroborate it, it's no different than a successful wild stab in the dark. The implicit claim of truth and accuracy in an assertion is worthless without evidence, it contributes nothing as an independent claim. Only increasing the body of evidence does any good. If testimony is that someone saw something roll under the couch while they witnessed a murder taking place, and nothing is found there, but something in fact did but was either removed or continued rolling until it went elsewhere, they're technically telling the truth accurately but it does not a damn bit of good and is indistinguishable from a lie or faulty perception or recollection.

Testimony is just a body of claims interconnected to one initial assertion. Like pieces of a riddle. The riddle itself is useless without the answer (actual evidence).

[Whateverist]

Okay. Granted: testimony is evidence. It simply isn't very reliable and I remain unconvinced and uninterested. Carry on.

---

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.

Do you happen to know if that is really what he ties his faith to?  Seems more likely to just be how he justifies it after the fact, don't you think?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay. Granted: testimony is evidence. It simply isn't very reliable and I remain unconvinced and uninterested. Carry on.

---

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.

Do you happen to know if that is really what he ties his faith to?  Seems more likely to just be how he justifies it after the fact, don't you think?

Perhaps, but that strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Whether a priori or ex post facto, the thrust of my question remains -- what might happen to that "faith", shorn of its "evidence"?

[Astonished]

Nothing. Faith doesn't require evidence. This is how he's trying to disingenuously convince others that he's not full of shit. It's failed spectacularly from the word 'go'. He has yet to figure this out.

[Ravenshire]

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

You do nothing more than make your arguments irrelevant by doing nothing more than re-asserting it. Show some actual evidence that testimony is reliable, especially in the face of all the cases where testimony got someone convicted and physical evidence got them exonerated.

[LadyForCamus]

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 accepting 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

How many years did it take you to perfect this skill of weaving together convoluted mazes of red herrings?  Do people generally fall for it?

This is exactly why threads involving you and RR end up being a hundred pages long.  The content is 90% endless text walls of distractions, and 10% actual discussion.  Wouldn't it be easier to just talk to people?

I am not offering, nor do I need to offer a formal, logical argument to reach the conclusion that eyewitness testimony is unreliable as a form of evidence. Do you know why?  Because I have actual evidence, a plethora in fact, which demonstrates it's truth.  Therefore, your charge of a logical fallacy is, in and of itself fallacious; an elaborate red herring constructed for the purpose of obfuscating and distracting from my very simple, and direct point.

"Eyewitness testimony is unreliable as a form of evidence" is a statement of fact.  If you disagree, then you're simply wrong.  You, on the other hand, have no evidence to back up your assertion that eyewitness testimony is reliable, nor your faulty conclusion based off of this un-evidenced  assertion, that witness testimony alone is reasonably sufficient for claims of the supernatural.

The person here with the fallacious argument is you, Steve.  Now.  Try again, because you're 0 for 2 on:

1.  Accurately representing my position, which I will restate for you here:


A. Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence. (Edited so that poopy-pants can't mischaracterize my point for a third time)

B. Therefore, I and any other rational person, in the interest of reason and truth, should wait for corroborating evidence before accepting any claim beyond the most mundane, where being wrong in that belief carries little to no serious consequences.  And, especially before accepting 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.


2.  Addressing it.

[Astonished]

This reminds me of something that happened a little over 10 years ago. I was working graveyard shift at a gas station food mart, and a homeless guy came in to buy a beer. He plunked down a bunch of change on the counter and I counted it to see if he had enough. He was about 25 or 30 cents short, so I told him it wasn't enough and how much he'd need to be able to afford his tall can. He leaves. Comes back in about an hour or two later, plunks down some change on the counter, I count it, IT'S THE SAME EXACT AMOUNT AS BEFORE, DOWN TO THE PENNY.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nothing. Faith doesn't require evidence. This is how he's trying to disingenuously convince others that he's not full of shit. It's failed spectacularly from the word 'go'. He has yet to figure this out.

Yeah, that's the premise behind my question, hence the scare quotes.