Anecdotal Evidence

[Ravenshire]

---

It impresses on me even further of the fallibility of testimony.

Warming to it? I wouldn't say that. I've never believed that testimony is useless as evidence, and if I've given that impression I apologize. I just don't believe, based on what we understand of human memory, that it's strong enough to base a firm conclusion on by itself. It's certailny useful as corroborative evidence (murder weapon, DNA evidence and eye-witness(es) placing the accused at the scene).

"I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should never be enough to convict someone of a murder unless you also have enough physical evidence tying "Joe" to the crime.

On the other hand, "I saw Joe leave the house after I heard gunshots." should very much be enough to investigate "Joe" if a crime has been committed that matches the witnesses claim.

Human memory is too unreliable to trust, by itself, to come to a conclusion. Let me illustrate:
In 1998, I saw Jackie Joyner-Kersee win an Olympic medal at the summer games in New York City. That is, to the best of my knowledge, a statement of fact. It's what I remember. It never happened. New York City has never hosted the Olympic games. There were no summer games in 1998. Yet I clearly remember her winning an Olympic medal, in New York, in 1998.

It happens that it was the Goodwill games, which were indeed held in NYC in 1998. But, I only know that now because I just looked it up and had I been called upon before today to give testimony in a court of law whether Joyner-Kersee won an Olympic medal at the summer Olympic games in New York City, I would have sworn under oath that she did. It's likely that in the future I'll revert to that belief, forgetting once again that there ever were such a thing as the Goodwill games.

Moving beyond the fallibility of human memory, people can give horribly bad testimony even without faulty memories. Is the witness coerced? Is the witness even being honest? Is the witness a friend of the defendant or a foe? Is the witness being paid for their testimony? In short, does the witness have a motive to say what the prosecution (or the defense) wants them to say. These are just some of the things that should bar witness testimony from being the sole evidence to any conclusion.

---

I just wanted to add.   I am asking questions, in order to provoke discussion.   I do think that your position is probably the most reasonable of the others we have seen.  I understand, that within philosophy, the epistemological value of testimony, is still a contested thing; and, is not a slam dunk in either direction.  What stands in the favor of testimony, is that it is the most direct and exhaustive form of evidence in a good example.   That is, it can provide you with more information than anything else.  Also, many of the claims of fallibility can be applied to other forms of evidence as well.   Against it, is many of the things that you have cited.  However, what I think wins out, is that we all have to rely on the testimony of others, in a good many number of cases.   We cannot get away from using testimony, even in arguing against it.  Even in a court case, they call in expert testimony to inform us, they don't do the autopsy there in court.

RR, I think we agree (and correct me if I'm wrong) in principle that testimony can be used as evidence. Where we disagree is how the evidence is weighted. It seems that you view testimonial evidence as equal to physical evidence where I think it lags behind the physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence can be tainted just as testimony can be. But, we can re-test physical evidence (for that which needs testing), even years or in some cases decades after the events. Testimony, not so much. Memories fade, and worse, change over time. The powder residue in the pillow "Joe" used to muffle the shots, not so much. The powder residue in the shirt "Joe" was wearing, the video of him running from the store, the hairs that match his found at the scene etc...

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Knowing what I know about memory, it's doubtful I'll ever change my stance on this. Of course, if newer information about human memory comes to light or better technologies for verifying testimonies, I'm open to reconsideration.