Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

You know, I've grown tired of arguing with our resident brick wall. It's become painfully obvious that his emotional investment in the worth of testimony has overridden common sense. Even the courts are starting to instruct juries in the (un)reliability of testimony evidence, yet RR staunchly defends it as being at least as worthy as physical evidence, citing that that physical evidence can be corrupted, misleading, etc... while ignoring the arguments that physical evidence can be retested with little if any degradation yet testimony only gets less reliable the further you get from the actual events.p

We've had an expert in testimony explain the problems, supported by physical evidence and unwittingly demonstrating exactly what he was explaining. RR dismissed the physical evidence and, ironically, questioned the reliability of the testimony. My own case of conflating the 1998 Goodwill Games with Olympic games, similarly dismissed.

RR, it's obvious you want testimony to be as reliable (or more) as physical evidence. The problem, for you, is that the evidence doesn't bear your wishes out. I can only be left with the belief that your emotional investment in testimony springs from your belief in the unsupported, second-hand (at best) testimonies that inform your faith.

It's actually kinda funny that someone who claims to be skeptical can be so credulous of ancient, unsupported claims yet so disbelieving of the evidence laid out under his nose.

---

And now, because I don't agree, you go to emotional investment and a lack of common sense?  And yes, the courts are starting to instruct jury's on issues within testimony.   Primarily, that of identifying a stranger, and the issues of memory not being a perfect recording device, that can call up any detail.  And they are also still hearing testimony as evidence, and testimony alone is enough to convict.

Now it keeps being brought up that I am dismissing o the evidence.  What is this evidence that everyone thinks that I am ignoring (I have agreed to a great deal)?  What I don't think that you have done, is show that testimony is so unreliable as to either not be evidence at all, or be so weak be the often claimed lowest type of evidence, barely able to be called that.

Here is my summary of the case you have made so far. 

• Pointed to websites or experts which state or have the title Witness testimony is unreliable - Normally if you read these sites or studies though, you find that it is certain aspects of witness testimony that is unreliable.  Most when you read them (and given some thought), are really dealing with two aspects of testimony though.  That of identifying a stranger, and memory issues. 
  
• Pointed to people that have been wrongly convicted, because of witness testimony.
  

The following, I am unsure if it was you or others, but the arguments have been made also, that people can lie (true of any testimony including that of your experts).  And that human perception memory, and recollection is so flawed to be useful as information regarding a belief.  I asked the question before, and I don't believe that any one answered,  but if you cannot trust others, and you cannot trust your own perception or memory, then what are you basing your beliefs on.

In the other thread, when I pointed out that DNA evidence can be unreliable (and subjective) it was rightly pointed out, that this is one aspect of DNA; that of when there isn't a clean sample.  In fact the above bulleted arguments can both be made of DNA evidence.  If you google DNA evidence unreliable, you will find a number of articles that discuss this (many are focusing on the rise of technology and touch DNA), and you can also find that people have been falsely convicted because of an over reliance on DNA evidence.  Do your same conclusions follow with DNA evidence?

Here is but one example from a professor on Pshycology & Law  Here

As part of the “Psychology & Law” class that I teach, I set out to illustrate the point that contaminated forensic evidence of any kind (not just contaminated eyewitness evidence) can lead to a wrongful conviction

The following observation was noted in a demonstration where DNA evidence mistakenly pointed to a person.

The prosecution’s theory seems unaccountably accepting of the idea that a 4-year-old with no apparent connection to Leiterman was present and also bleeding when Mixer was murdered

I'm not pitting physical evidence agaisnt witness testimony. I believe that in any individual case, that either the physical evidence or witness testimony may be more useful in giving you a picture of what occurred. In one case, physical evidence may outweigh the testimony, and in another, testimony may be greater than the picture the physical evidence paints. It all depends on the quality of the evidence.

As I stated before, I think that you need to show your reasons, why witness testimony and any flaws or shortcoming make testimony as a whole either not evidence or the least form of evidence (or whatever case you are trying to make). Cherry picking examples does not make a case, and even the site you referenced earlier (for the video) stated that testimony is generally reliable.

---

I think that the sufficiency of any evidence depends on how well it demonstrates the proposition or belief to be valid.

Do you? Even if the witness is mistaken? Or lying? Or falsely remembering? Because it demonstrates the proposition well, it's valid?

I know some people who can convincingly "demonstrate the proposition" that you should buy their bridge. You want to buy?

No if they are mistaken or lying, then it doesn't demonstrate the proposition well.