Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

Well, I've supplied evidence for my stance. Perhaps you could do the same? Not a logical argument as you so love to do, but actual evidence.

I don't need to. The evidence is the evidence. It's the conclusions you draw from the evidence that is in question. Your position seems to be:

1. Witness testimony is unreliable for some % of cases
2. We don't know when a mistake will be made
3. Therefore witness testimony cannot be relied upon by itself

But the conclusion does not necessarily (in every case...therefore must) follow from the premises which is evident when we look at the opposing view:

1. Witness testimony is unreliable for some % of cases
2. We don't know when a mistake will be made 
3' Therefore care must be given when relying solely on witness testimony

This conclusion is completely circular and meaningless.  You're essentially saying:

1. Witness testimony is wrong sometimes 
2. We don't know when it will be wrong
3. Therefore, we must be careful not to accept wrong testimony, and only accept correct testimony

Your conclusion is just a re-stating of your premises, and to further its pointlessness, you offer no objective means of distinguishing between reliable/unreliable testimony as all your metrics are totally subjective:  character, track record, etc., experience.  

Totally valid argument. You've essentially logically argued into existence that witness testimony is unreliable as a form of evidence, lol.

Thanks! 😁