Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

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...?


Has never overturned a case, or you have not heard of one?  It does seem like most of the news is about DNA and most of what you get in a search (because it's new).  But that doesn't mean never.  How did you come to this conclusion?   Also, I still ask what is the difference if it occurs in trial or after?

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.

I'm sorry, if I mistaken some other's positions, with your low quality and unreliable variety.  However the argument still applies, that if the reasons are the same, then the same conclusion should follow.  I agree, that we need to test our witnesses, and any testimony given by others.  And with DNA there is a further interpretation also.  And even though I misspoke regarding your position, the rest still applies also here.  As I  mentioned before, and no one still seems to want to answer, it seems to me, that there are three ways in which we form our beliefs.  Personal witness, testimony from others, and reason.  Unless you want to make an argument for feelings, is there anything that you would add?  This concerns how the facts or information where acquired, and processing that information.  I don't see how one can argue against these in any meaningful way, without undercutting their own arguments.  As we seen here, even when I wasn't questioning, the testimony, I was criticized for disregarding the evidence.  This is nonsensical to me.

edit to add.....  I do appreciate the few posters, that when you strip away the name calling, insults, and restating the conclusion do have some discussion.  Thanks,