Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

In

---

It is a claim, that I find odd and out of the norm, which I have mostly run into only while talking to atheist.  I had tried to discuss it in the past; however as it was here, that can prove difficult, with people who appear more intent to disrupt discussion rather than participate in it, and appeal to motives and such.  This is a principle which has implications outside of the God or religion and so I wanted to investigate the reasoning behind it further.  I think that in some extreme versions, it is outright untenable, and leads to absurdity. 

However as sometimes is the case, our views and/or definitions we are starting from; may lead to misunderstandings, which make discussion difficult.  We are arguing about the directions, when we are starting from different locations, and wondering why they don't match up.  So this thread wasn't about discussion or debate, but about understanding what the view of others are more accurately and how they are applied.  And possibly to find out how popular this view was (among this generally atheist community); although I don't know if there was enough participation to get a good idea on that. 

In the past, the discussion has been about looking at what the others arguments where for this claim (and giving my own).  It was about the why, this thread was more about the what is believed.  Part of an ongoing attempt to look at this rationally and to see if there is good reason, and if I may be wrong in my views.  To have a moment of introspection, and perhaps encourage the same in others.  Just two different ways of going about that.   Also, for those who where questioning the placement of this thread under the life sciences category.  I had basically come down between psychology and philosophy.  Seeing as how this wasn't about debating the epistemology of testimony, it seemed like a social science inquiry more aptly applied.

---

What claim?  That eye witness testimony is not sufficient evidence to believe certain truth claims?  I mean, what difference does it make whether we call it 'evidence' or not, anyway?  Arguing for a label doesn't automatically legitimize or bolster the content of what you're labeling.  I asked Steve this question in his thread:  what's the practical difference between lousy evidence and no evidence at all?

Incidentally, I don't think anyone in this thread has made the assertion (that you seem to be implying) that eyewitness testimony is useless.   That's not my position, at least.  But, I don't think there is any way to honestly follow this discussion through without ending back at claims of the supernatural, do you?

It does seem that quite a few are saying that testimony is not evidence, if that is not what they mean, then perhaps they should re-consider what they are saying.  And I do realize that some are only saying that it is evidence but categorically insufficient on it's own.  Which would be handled differently when discussing/debating the topic.  It's not just about slapping a label on it and being done.  Evidence is a category, that describes that which falls under it's definition (and perhaps that definition needs to be discussed as well.  And I think it means something when someone applies or denies that description. If you don't have meaning behind what you are saying, then what is the point?

I think that there is a difference between lousy evidence and no evidence (hence the different description prefixing it.  But that might depend on what you mean by lousy.  Anyways, I think that any discussion about the supernatural, is a long ways down the road for where we are now.  And is really going to be closer to the discussion about extraordinary claims.