Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

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.

All you did was tack 1 and 2 to the end of 3' which is both wrong and redundant. Anything that follows the word 'because' is by definition a premise and does not belong in the conclusion line.