(January 3, 2019 at 2:03 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:Quote:As Eye witness testimony is one of the hardest evidence to refute in a court of law
What.
I agree "What"?
Any lawyer worth their weight prosecuting or defending, wants as few witnesses as possible. The more people that take the stand the more opportunity for the other side to pick the arguments apart.
I hate this argument that "witness" observation is the same as scientific observation.
Our species perceptions are notoriously flawed. It is literally why one can walk into a squeaky clean glass door thinking it is open when it is not. Science is the ability to determine if the door is open or not and not simply rely on claims.
Trying to equate courts to scientific method is stupid.
I once went to traffic court and prior to mere traffic tickets, the docket put forth arraignment of case like theft robbery ect ect. So this one case was called, a cab driver swore under oath that the accused robbed him. I remember him being dead serious certain the guy accused was the guy who robbed him. BUT, the accused family members, one after the other, got on the stand and swore he was at home watching TV with him. The judge wasn't buying the accused story, but his hands were tied because no evidence was presented in that arraignment that the family members were lying. So the charges were dropped.
As far as holy writings it is possible that the writers are making up myth and lying to over conflate numbers to sell a story.
Observation in scientific method is not like a court.