Testimony is Evidence

[Ravenshire]

No need to repeat.  Just link to the post where you answered Benny's question.

Nope... not filling up the thread with useless posts.  Especially when people are just going to say I'm lying anyway.

Lol.  What does that have to do with anything?   At least Steve-O attempts to disguise his red herrings.  You're spiraling fast, RR.

You are the one who brought up the appeals, I am asking if there is a difference if the testimony overrides the DNA evidence in the appeal, or in the trial.

Are they the same?  If so, how?  Remember equivocation?  Anything going on upstairs at all today,  RR?  Too many beers last night or something?  


You don't seem to know very much about how logic works if you can't understand a simple equivocation fallacy...

The same reasons apply, unless you want to support a category error.   If you are saying that Testimony is not evidence, because of X,Y,Z.  Then if X,Y,Z are found in DNA cases, it would also follow that DNA is not evidence for the same reasons.  (assuming that the argument is valid to begin with).  

If not

• there is something else, which you are basing your reasoning on (which needs to be stated and supported).
  
• there are special circumstances which makes something apply or not apply to one or the other (which you need to give your reasons for).
  
• You are just inconsistent in applying your logic.
  
• Or the argument was never really logical to begin with.
  

This is why the anecdotes of false convictions based on testimony are not evidence. They may be evidence of a single case, but a conclusion based on a small sample (especially if you cherry pick only cases that support your conclusion) is not good reasoning for a general proclamation on the entire category..   Now I do believe that both DNA and testimony are generally reliable and both are considered evidence.   So in these arguments, there must be something wrong in the premise  (Not evidence because of X,Y,Z) Now you could make the arguments or show the figures that testimony as a whole
is generally unreliable with a success rate lower than a certain threshold of which we could compare to other things as well.  However this is not being done.

Now if you think my reasons are faulty or that I still don't know how logic works, please be specific, in what you feel I'm doing wrong.

Your intellectual dishonesty has grown to disgusting proportions. You can't show that testimony is reliable, therefore everyone is cherry picking and providing anecdotes.

You want to show testimony is reliabe? Show us cases where the primary cause for conviction is physical evidence and testimony got it overturned. I dare you.