Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

Damn!  I really thought I had something there, haha!  😛  But, my failed take down doesn't change what I was saying before; that all of this is theoretical, and based on heavily subjective metrics.  Your conclusion basically says, "don't accept unreliable testimony."[1] What practical purpose does that serve?  How does that advance our ability to distinguish between good and bad testimony in any real world capacity?  How do you suppose we apply this?  By using more testimony?  [2]

 You say, "if these things do not increase the likelihood of truth," but you have no actual way of measuring or quantifying results.  You have no way to demonstrate that "being careful", what ever that means (all this "background info" is similarly subjective, and so it may mean something different to you than it means to me) is a MORE reliable method, or at least AS reliable a method to the truth of a claim as simply withholding belief until stronger evidence arises. [3] All you have is syllogism hanging in space.

1. Remember the context of my post. I was comparing 3 and 3' --illustrating that both follow from the same premises (evidence) and the conclusions were written to address the specific question of relying solely on witness testimony. This means that both are opinion. There is no warrant in the evidence to say one is correct. My opinion matches most the world's opinion.

Bold mine:

You're asserting that it's most of the world's opinion that testimony, ALONE, so long as it is assessed with "care", is equally sufficient as evidence for all manner of claims?  Interesting.  

2. The evidence presented addresses this question. There are way to improve reliable outcomes: double-blind lineups, sequential lineups, jury instruction, ask for confidence statements, etc.

Why have you suddenly narrowed your focus to trial testimony only?  I would expect that your logic should apply to claims of any nature, correct?  Perhaps this "background information" becomes less objective, less relevant, and more difficult to control the more extraordinary the claim?  

You do acknowledge that we accept witness testimony (sometimes on it own) every minute of every day right? Because the way you go on an on about this implies that the idea is irrational, and by extension, every legal system in the world is irrational.

We've talked about this already though, haven't we?  Other types of claims besides alleged crimes exist, Steve.  You are asserting that testimony alone can be reliable evidence for all nature of claims equally and that this is at least as reasonable as withholding belief until stronger evidence arises.  I'm no logicist but I don't see how you have presented any evidential support for this assertion at all.  All you offer is this generic sort of qualifier, "care".  But you're unable to give specifics on how to implement this "care" in the real world outside of court room examples.  So...what good is it then?  

As I said before, the best you can demonstrate with your syllogism is the reliability of the witness.  It speaks nothing to the truth of the claim directly, and we know for a scientific fact that reliable witnesses give incorrect testimony all the time.

---

What have we learned?  

That testimony is not evidence.  That testimony is inherently unreliable, and that testimony must be judged against external standards.  

These dipshits have managed to argue their way into agreement with the opposition viewpoint - which was expressed on the very first page of this thread...and, as such, I'm guessing that it's time to let this one die, wait a day, and start all over again.....again.  

Oh, and that RR would believe in gremlins so long as I promised him I wasn't hallucinating.  😏