I apologize, I kind of got away from this thread. I've been working 12 hour days, and working on the house, on the weekends. With that, I'm not gong to quote anyone, because I realize that people may no longer have interest; but, I had a couple of closing thoughts on the conversation.
As to testimony being the weakest form of evidence, or that it was not preferred in historical and legal matters. I would ask for those saying this, to support their statements. Looking at historical method, it deals quite a bit with testimony and how to test one's witnesses. J. Warner Wallace, who was a quite successful homicide and cold case detective in Los Angeles, states that he has won cases with nothing but testimony evidence, or with no forensic evidence. Personally; I don't think that any category of evidence is stronger or weaker a priori. That the strength of the evidence, is based on how well it accounts for what happens, which in many cases, testimony can tell you a lot more than any other single piece of indirect evidence.
So this week, I was envisioning a scenario, where many of the arguments seemingly presented here come into play. I am at a casino, playing texas hold'em. I am slow playing my royal flush (which I have never seen dealt before). My opponent plays right to it, and I am able to build up quite a large pot. As the cards are turned over however, I am astonished when the dealer tells me, that I lost the hand. He goes on to talk about Bayes theorem and the odds against getting a royal flush. How about how we cannot trust what we perceive to see, and that it is far more likely, that I had a high card or maybe a pair. Multiple people affirm that I did indeed get a royal flush, but the dealer insist that we cannot know that without the casino scientist verifying that it did in fact take place. As he collects the cards, he explains that their resident scientist called in sick that day, and that I would have to come back tomorrow, so get a decision. When I return the next day, we are unable to repeat the hand, and they decide that a much more mundane explanation is more plausible. At the end of this imagined account, I am escorted out of building (likely in cuffs) and asked that I not return with such nonsense (and the abusive transactions which likely transpired after).
So, in this account, would I be wrong in believing what I saw, and what others testified to, and should I apologize to the dealer and casino?
As to testimony being the weakest form of evidence, or that it was not preferred in historical and legal matters. I would ask for those saying this, to support their statements. Looking at historical method, it deals quite a bit with testimony and how to test one's witnesses. J. Warner Wallace, who was a quite successful homicide and cold case detective in Los Angeles, states that he has won cases with nothing but testimony evidence, or with no forensic evidence. Personally; I don't think that any category of evidence is stronger or weaker a priori. That the strength of the evidence, is based on how well it accounts for what happens, which in many cases, testimony can tell you a lot more than any other single piece of indirect evidence.
So this week, I was envisioning a scenario, where many of the arguments seemingly presented here come into play. I am at a casino, playing texas hold'em. I am slow playing my royal flush (which I have never seen dealt before). My opponent plays right to it, and I am able to build up quite a large pot. As the cards are turned over however, I am astonished when the dealer tells me, that I lost the hand. He goes on to talk about Bayes theorem and the odds against getting a royal flush. How about how we cannot trust what we perceive to see, and that it is far more likely, that I had a high card or maybe a pair. Multiple people affirm that I did indeed get a royal flush, but the dealer insist that we cannot know that without the casino scientist verifying that it did in fact take place. As he collects the cards, he explains that their resident scientist called in sick that day, and that I would have to come back tomorrow, so get a decision. When I return the next day, we are unable to repeat the hand, and they decide that a much more mundane explanation is more plausible. At the end of this imagined account, I am escorted out of building (likely in cuffs) and asked that I not return with such nonsense (and the abusive transactions which likely transpired after).
So, in this account, would I be wrong in believing what I saw, and what others testified to, and should I apologize to the dealer and casino?
