RE: Evidence to Convict?
August 6, 2017 at 8:25 pm
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 8:39 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 6, 2017 at 7:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(August 6, 2017 at 5:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In
What claim? That eye witness testimony is not sufficient evidence to believe certain truth claims? I mean, what difference does it make whether we call it 'evidence' or not, anyway? Arguing for a label doesn't automatically legitimize or bolster the content of what you're labeling. I asked Steve this question in his thread: what's the practical difference between lousy evidence and no evidence at all?
Incidentally, I don't think anyone in this thread has made the assertion (that you seem to be implying) that eyewitness testimony is useless. That's not my position, at least. But, I don't think there is any way to honestly follow this discussion through without ending back at claims of the supernatural, do you?
It does seem that quite a few are saying that testimony is not evidence, if that is not what they mean, then perhaps they should re-consider what they are saying. And I do realize that some are only saying that it is evidence but categorically insufficient on it's own. Which would be handled differently when discussing/debating the topic. It's not just about slapping a label on it and being done. Evidence is a category, that describes that which falls under it's definition (and perhaps that definition needs to be discussed as well. And I think it means something when someone applies or denies that description. If you don't have meaning behind what you are saying, then what is the point?
I think that there is a difference between lousy evidence and no evidence (hence the different description prefixing it. But that might depend on what you mean by lousy. Anyways, I think that any discussion about the supernatural, is a long ways down the road for where we are now. And is really going to be closer to the discussion about extraordinary claims.
I said practical difference, though. In other words, as an example of what I mean, if I am sitting on a jury for a man facing the death penalty, I (and I think/hope most rational folks) am going to say, "not guilty" whether there is no evidence or poor/insufficient evidence of his guilt.
I don't think we can have an intellectually honest discussion about the value of testimony as evidence without discussing extraordinary claims. I mean, that was the whole point of Steve's thread - do extraordinary claims demand a higher degree of evidence in order to be rationally accepted as true? My 'testimony' to my husband that I put our baby to bed at 8 is certainly sufficient evidence to him for the claim I've made. Now, if I said I put our baby down at 8, and he grew horns and sang Yankee Doodle in German out of his butt-hole...he may not accept that claim on my testimony alone, lol.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.