Testimony is Evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be exterior to my "witness testimony".  Next.

I see. Then all you're doing is setting up a straw man by saying that the person doing the testifying has nothing to do with the testimony he or she gives. It's like saying people cannot consider the author's intent when reading a book.

The "authors intent" is external to "witness testimony".  Next.

[Minimalist]

Apparently neither of these morons can comprehend that until a witness is examined his "testimony" is merely an opinion.

Even after cross-examination it is up to the jury to decide his/her credibility.

Somehow they cannot seem to grasp that we do not attach the same level of reverence to the nonsense written in their holy horseshit that they do.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I see. Then all you're doing is setting up a straw man by saying that the person doing the testifying has nothing to do with the testimony he or she gives. It's like saying people cannot consider the author's intent when reading a book.

The "authors intent" is external to "witness testimony".  Next.

Never figured you for one to go along with Foucault. You like to make arguments of convenience don't you?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, and it is context of those who say that testimony is not evidence, or testimony is so weak as to require physical evidence to go with it.  This shows that this is untrue in current U.S. Judicial proceedings.

Well, it's a good then I never made that point, now isn't it?

I should think it would have been clear from my first post here that I wasn't commenting on the legal value of testimonial, but rather, the epistemological.

Yes, and as I have said from the beginning, testimony being evidence, doesn't mean that we do not examine it, test it, and question it at all.  I agree, that some testimony can be rubbish, either because of it's content (or lack thereof), or because you have reasons to discount it.

Indeed. And the more questionable the claim of the original testimony, the more solid must be the supporting evidence, no?

And this is a point, that I would like to hear the reasoning behind.  I don't think that you have the information that testimony has never overturned a conviction based on physical evidence.  I think that this is an assumption on your part.

I've never heard of such a case, and I follow the news regularly. The only cases I've heard of have been reopened as a result of physical evidence and then supplemented by a confession from the actual criminal. However, using the search term "conviction overturned on testimony" only returns hits that recount overturnings that were based on false testimony. While it is an assumption on my part, it seems that there are no notable cases involving convictions overturned on the basis of new testimony. Even if you're right in implying that my assumption is mistaken, it still seems to be the case that any such overturning is so rare that they're very difficult to find -- and with that one must accept that the probative value of testimony is considered by courts to be considerably less than that of physical evidence.

[Cyberman]

The "authors intent" is external to "witness testimony".  Next.

Never figured you for one to go along with Foucault. You like to make arguments of convenience don't you?

Interestingly, Foucault is also a perfect description of how much I know about Foucault.

[bennyboy]

What if I prefaced it with, "everything that comes out of Khemikal's mouth is divine and inerrant."
Would that help with the decision-making process?  😉

Only if his family told him so when he was a young child.

Cuz that's how the world works-- parents > evidence + logic

[Amarok]

You like to make arguments of convenience don't you?

No he likes making reasonable arguments that make sense . Take notes.

You on the other hand like making idiotic fallacy laden tripe . And name dropping philosophers to make yourself sound smart and knowledgeable.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Never figured you for one to go along with Foucault. You like to make arguments of convenience don't you?

Interestingly, Foucault is also a perfect description of how much I know about Foucault.

Not to worry. I was just acting like a know-it-all name-dropper.

[Cyberman]

Butterfingers!

[LadyForCamus]

I just want to spell my thoughts out a little more clearly than I did a few pages back, now that I have two free hands. Steve's syllogism for the reliability of witness testimony alone as evidence is as follows (bold/italics are mine):

1. Witness testimony is unreliable for some % of cases
2. We don't know when a mistake will be made
3' Therefore, care must be given when relying solely on witness testimony, because it is unreliable for some percent of cases, and we don't know when a mistake will be made.

Is this not circular reasoning? Really, it's just a re-stating of what we've been saying all along: be wary of witness testimony because it's inherently unreliable.

He simply shoehorn's into his conclusion "when relying solely on testimony," but the argument its self doesn't lead us to a conclusion that it is logical to do so.