RE: Testimony is Evidence
August 31, 2017 at 12:29 pm
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2017 at 12:52 pm by LadyForCamus.)
H
Steve, could you explain how you would go about assessing this background data? Further, can you explain your reasoning behind the assumption that demonstrating the integrity and cognitive ability of the witness means you have also demonstrated the truth of their testimony to the degree that you would not require any further corroborating evidence? People of sound mind mis-remember all the time. How could you ever objectively distinguish, even using all this "background information," as you call it, between a false memory and a real one without referring to external, corroborating evidence?
It seems all you could do with this argument, at best, is demonstrate the reliability of the witness to tell the truth about what they believe they witnessed, not that the content of the testimony itself stands on its own. Those two things are indeed different.
I'll go back to my gremlin example that has gone unanswered by RR. Using your syllogism, you conclude that I am honest, moral, and of sound mind. Does this mean you accept my testimony, on its own, that I saw a gremlin eating the tires off of a Dodge Charger?
Quote:1 A witness's recollection could be wrong
2 The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context.
Steve, could you explain how you would go about assessing this background data? Further, can you explain your reasoning behind the assumption that demonstrating the integrity and cognitive ability of the witness means you have also demonstrated the truth of their testimony to the degree that you would not require any further corroborating evidence? People of sound mind mis-remember all the time. How could you ever objectively distinguish, even using all this "background information," as you call it, between a false memory and a real one without referring to external, corroborating evidence?
It seems all you could do with this argument, at best, is demonstrate the reliability of the witness to tell the truth about what they believe they witnessed, not that the content of the testimony itself stands on its own. Those two things are indeed different.
I'll go back to my gremlin example that has gone unanswered by RR. Using your syllogism, you conclude that I am honest, moral, and of sound mind. Does this mean you accept my testimony, on its own, that I saw a gremlin eating the tires off of a Dodge Charger?
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.
