RE: Testimony is Evidence
August 30, 2017 at 10:59 pm
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2017 at 11:36 pm by LadyForCamus.)
I just want to spell my thoughts out a little more clearly than I did a few pages back, now that I have two free hands. Steve's syllogism for the reliability of witness testimony alone as evidence is as follows (bold/italics are mine):
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, because it is unreliable for some percent of cases, and we don't know when a mistake will be made.
Is this not circular reasoning? Really, it's just a re-stating of what we've been saying all along: be wary of witness testimony because it's inherently unreliable.
He simply shoehorn's into his conclusion "when relying solely on testimony," but the argument its self doesn't lead us to a conclusion that it is logical to do so.
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, because it is unreliable for some percent of cases, and we don't know when a mistake will be made.
Is this not circular reasoning? Really, it's just a re-stating of what we've been saying all along: be wary of witness testimony because it's inherently unreliable.
He simply shoehorn's into his conclusion "when relying solely on testimony," but the argument its self doesn't lead us to a conclusion that it is logical to do so.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
