Witness Evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

yes thats true we do have to trust in other peoples observations . we trust in the observations of scientists for example , not all eyewitness testomony is accepted as reliable you have to take a good look at the eyewitnesses and take into account their mental state and many other factors to determine the reliability of the testamony . If we have no information about an eyewitness as to their reliability and mental state then that eyewitness testomony shouldnt be trusted ...

LOL.... do scientist have to submit to a phych eval every time they submit their work. 

I generally agree, but where we cannot speak or access directly, then I think we need to rely on those around them.  I also think that collaborating testimony helps here.

Nope...because we don't trust scientists, we trust their results.  Again an example of the weakness of witness testimony.  

"I made life in a test tube!"
-Do it again, while we watch. Give us step by step instructions, we'll try ourselves.

Science is a graveyard for failed claims. Plenty have been made, we know better than to take them for their word. We remember the ones that haven't been eviscerated (yet), but we forget that they lay atop a mountain of disinformation which had nothing but the claimants word attached. Witness testimony, meh. Get back to me when the Witnesses convert you with their "witness testimony".

The only time that collaborating testimony helps, is when we're sure that there's something around which the testimony collaborates. Yet another example of the weakness of eyewitness testimony, there must first be a fact established before it's even considered to be informative, let alone decisive.

Or, if you prefer, "no body, no crime".