Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

I see the problem now.

1. "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable." You are taking all witness testimony as a whole and applying to it the fact that some testimony is unreliable. This is an excellent example of the fallacy of composition. This premise is obviously fallacious because some amount of testimony is reliable. 

2. I have no problem with this. However often the only corroborating evidence is more testimony. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, billions of events every day happen where there is no lasting physical evidence that can be examined. 

3. Your syllogism collapsed because the first premise is a fallacy. So we are back to mine -- tell me where I erred:

     1' A witness's recollection could be wrong
     2' The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
     3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
     4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context

How many years did it take you to perfect this skill of weaving convoluted mazes of red herrings?  Do people generally fall for it?

This  is exactly why threads involving you and RR end up being a hundred pages long.  The content is 90% endless text walls of distractions, and 10% actual discussion.  Wouldn't it be easier to just talk to people?

I am not offering, nor do I need to offer a formal, logical argument to reach the conclusion that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  Do you know why?  Because I have evidence which demonstrates it's truth.  Therefore, your charge of a logical fallacy is, in and of itself fallacious; an elaborate red herring constructed for the purpose of obfuscating and distracting from my very simple, and direct point.

"Eyewitness testimony is unreliable" is a statement of fact.  If you disagree, then you're simply wrong.  You see, I have actual evidence (a plethora, in fact) to back up this statement, whereas you have no evidence to back up your assertion that eyewitness testimony is reliable, nor your faulty conclusion based off of this un-evidenced  assertion, that witness testimony alone is reasonably sufficient for claims of the supernatural.

The person here with the fallacious argument is you, Steve.  Now.  Try again, because you're 0 for 2 on:

1.  Accurately representing my position, which I will restate for you here:


 A. Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence. (Edited so that poopy-pants can't mischaracterize my point for a third time)

  B. Therefore, I and any other rational person, in the interest of reason and truth, should wait for corroborating evidence before believing any claim beyond the most mundane, where being wrong in that belief carries little to no serious consequences.  And, especially before believing claims of the "supernatural" variety, which carry far-reaching and deep-seeded consequences such as the defining of one's world views, and the ways in which we value our lives, and the lives of others.


2.  Addressing it.

I will spell it out more fully:

Take your claim "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence". That is simply not true. We rely on it to some degree millions of times a minute all over the world: In court cases of all types (criminal, civil, family), the running of governments of all levels, the running of corporations, the reporting of news, writing of articles/books, etc. These are all defeaters to your premise A. 

Perhaps you will backpedal and say "some witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence". I would agree with this premise. But there are ramifications of this backpedaling: The converse is also true: some witness testimony is reliable as a form of evidence. If that is true, your conclusion is no longer a conclusion that follows from the premises--but a statement of opinion. Now you have:

    1. Some witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence
    2. Some witness testimony is demonstrably reliable as a form of evidence
    3. Therefore the evidence is reliable on a case by case basis. 

Wait! that looks familiar.

For the third time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

     1 A witness's recollection could be wrong
     2 The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
     3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
     4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context