Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

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?

Ok... what is it, that merited such insults and rhetoric?

Good job dodging questions!  👍

[RoadRunner79]

So if I can make the same arguements against DNA evidence, that are made against witness testimony, the same conclusion would follow.  Does anyone disagree?

Lol, you can't though.  that's the whole point. To try and place those two on the same platform is simply equivocation. Crappy, transparent equivocation. Did you even read TGB's post about how many cases involving DNA evidence have been overturned by eyewitness testimony?

Spoiler alert: the answer is zero.

Cases that you know of (that's not really news, so you don't here if it) And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

And if the reasons for the argument are the same, then I think that the that the conclusion follows. That is the way logic works. Unless you are saying that either testimony or DNA evidence is a special circumstance which require different arguments. And then I think you need to support that reasoning.

[LadyForCamus]

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

The gremlins you where asking about, and people saw.

How might one go about doing that you suppose?

So in the other thread, you wanted to discuss testimony. Now, you want to discuss extraordinary claims. How long do you want to keep going in circles?

It's so cute when you try to charge people with the fallacies that you are guilty of.  If you're feeling dizzy, I totally understand. But, I've stayed on point throughout this entire thread, and the one before it. You're the one doing circles.  Wanna feel better?  All you have to do is stop.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... what is it, that merited such insults and rhetoric?

Good job dodging questions!  👍

I've learned that repeating myself, doesn't change people ignoring the answer.... I've answered the question a few times now.... if he doesn't believe the answers, I'm not going to state it over and over. Besides appealing to motives doesn't change any reasoning or the conclusion. It fallacious to use as reasoning.

[Joods]

From this thread here at the request of others, I am giving my reasons for why testimony is evidence.

<SNIP>

I call Bullshit.

[Whateverist]

For god questions I think there are no objective criteria for evidence. It convinces you? It's evidence. If it doesn't it isn't. There appears to be absolutely nothing about god belief which is objective.

[LadyForCamus]

Good job dodging questions!  👍

I've learned that repeating myself, doesn't change people ignoring the answer.... I've answered the question a few times now.... if he doesn't believe the answers, I'm not going to state it over and over. Besides appealing to motives doesn't change any reasoning or the conclusion. It fallacious to use as reasoning.

No need to repeat. Just link to the post where you answered Benny's question.

---

From this thread here at the request of others, I am giving my reasons for why testimony is evidence.

<SNIP>

I call Bullshit.

It'd be the right call.

---

Lol, you can't though.  that's the whole point.  To try and place those two on the same platform is simply equivocation.  Crappy, transparent equivocation.  Did you even read TGB's post about how many cases involving DNA evidence have been overturned by eyewitness testimony?

Spoiler alert: the answer is zero.

Cases that you know of (that's not really news, so you don't here if it) And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

Lol.  What does that have to do with anything? At least Steve-O attempts to disguise his red herrings. You're spiraling fast, RR.

And if the reasons for the argument are the same, then I think that the that the conclusion follows.

Are they the same?  If so, how?  Remember equivocation?  Anything going on upstairs at all today,  RR?  Too many beers last night or something?  

is the way logic works.

You don't seem to know very much about how logic works if you can't understand a simple equivocation fallacy...

[Minimalist]

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.

No.  You don't.  We are saying in this case that your "testimony" is bullshit because we don't even know who the witnesses are.  We have no opportunity to examine their claims.  The claim that there were 500 witnesses tells us nothing about those witnesses except their number which does no one any good at all.  What you are purporting to be testimony or evidence is nothing more than hyperbolic bullshit.

[SteveII]

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 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.  Do you know why?  Because I have evidence 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" is a statement of fact.  If you disagree, then you're simply wrong.  You see, I have actual evidence (a plethora, in fact) to back up this statement, whereas you 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 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.


2.  Addressing it.

I will spell it out more fully:

Take your claim "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence". That is simply not true. We rely on it to some degree millions of times a minute all over the world: In court cases of all types (criminal, civil, family), the running of governments of all levels, the running of corporations, the reporting of news, writing of articles/books, etc. These are all defeaters to your premise A. 

Perhaps you will backpedal and say "some witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence". I would agree with this premise. But there are ramifications of this backpedaling: The converse is also true: some witness testimony is reliable as a form of evidence. If that is true, your conclusion is no longer a conclusion that follows from the premises--but a statement of opinion. Now you have:

    1. Some witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence
    2. Some witness testimony is demonstrably reliable as a form of evidence
    3. Therefore the evidence is reliable on a case by case basis. 

Wait! that looks familiar.

For the third time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

     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

[LadyForCamus]

Good job dodging questions!  👍

I've learned that repeating myself, doesn't change people ignoring the answer.... I've answered the question a few times now.... if he doesn't believe the answers, I'm not going to state it over and over. Besides appealing to motives doesn't change any reasoning or the conclusion. It fallacious to use as reasoning.

Questioning your motives has nothing to do with challenging the validity of your argument.  It's about having respect for your opponents by debating honestly.