Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

There is certainly no shortage of absurd claims circulating throughout the human race. Probably, the most absurd supernatural claim one can fathom has been asserted by someone, somewhere.

---

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.

RR:  I answered the question already.
me:  I don't think you did.  Prove it.
RR:  No.

lol, gotcha.  😉

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.

If you're going to pretend to be obtuse, then I'm going to talk to you like you actually are.

Red Herring: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond.  The red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Logical form:

Argument A is presented by person 1.

Person 2 introduces argument B.

Argument A is abandoned.


Example:

Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?

Ken: But what is morality exactly?

Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.
Ken: But who creates this code?...

Returning to our discussion (some paraphrasing).  Bolded/italicized is your red herring:

LCF/TGB:   DNA and eyewitness testimony are not on equal footing in terms of strength as evidence.  DNA evidence overturns cases based off of eyewitness testimony all the time, but eyewitness testimony has never overturned a case based in DNA evidence.

RR: And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

Get it now...?

The same reasons apply, unless you want to support a category error.   If you are saying that Testimony is not evidence...

I never once said that.  In fact, I have been one of a few minority who concedes that eyewitness testimony IS a form of evidence, but of the very low quality and unreliable variety. Having you been paying attention to my participation in these threads at all? Try again with less straw.

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.

The rest of this gibberish is irrelevant because you have failed to accurately represent my position at the start.  You and Steve need serious work on your reading comprehension skills.