Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

It's pretty obvious to me, that people cannot discuss this, without making assumptions about where they think it is headed and what I'm going to do. It appears a way to divert away from discussing rationally.  

Testimony comes from the Latin word "testis" (root) and "testimonium"(1).  Meaning "witness" or "witness thereof" respectively. That is knowledge that comes as a result of the witness and transmission of another.    This is all I'm discussing in this regard; and to the dismissal of knowledge simply because it comes from testimony.  I think that this is ridiculous as an argument, especially as it is easy to show that it is not held consistently.  For instance, you want me to accept your testimony, or the testimony of some expert, but then use "it's testimony" as the reason to dismiss another claim.  I think this requires more, and that as a reason for dismissal is insufficient.  

Evidence is "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"(2)   In your comparison I think that you are speaking of something other than what I am for testimony (perhaps you can clarify).  Testimony would be evidence, acquired in a specific manner.  Also your "difference" between testimony and evidence seems somewhat circular. The only thing that makes since to me is that you are trying to say that testimony equals conclusion, where as evidence equals reason.  I would disagree, as the testimony is about witness, not the conclusion.

Etymology is fun, and I like it too.  But since your OP is about witness evidence, and you've used it interchangeably with testimony, that was pretty obvious.

And witness does not really add much to the definition of evidence you provided.  Witness does not constitute an "available body of facts," and is not a reliable source of information when new ideas are being tested.  It's also been shown that witness evidence is weak even for simple things like "What color were the perp's eyes?"

---

But I don't see why this thread is continuing.  Everyone here gets that sometimes we rely on the words of others (whatever term you use) because there's no better info, or because there's no reason not to believe what they say.  If, however, there is a controversy, then witness evidence is almost automatically discounted, in almost all contexts.

Are you saying that testimony is for those who believe, but is of no use to those who do not?

Also, I posted a link earlier, in which a number of cases where good testimony could withstand other physical evidence. The stronger evidence, which provided a clearer picture of what had occurred was followed. Do you disagree with this?