Witness Evidence

[robvalue]

Let's say I'll instantly believe any anecdotes you want, thus seeing if this discussion has a point at all.

What anecdotes do you want me to believe, and more importantly, what difference do you think it should make now that I believe them?

I'm not sure if this got missed or is being worked up to, so I repeated the above.

Also, I'm fine to say that a certain percentage of eye witness testimony may well be accurate enough to be meaningful. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 50% of anecdotes can be trusted to contain enough and correct detail to faithfully deliver the actual events that occured. (That's extremely generous, but let's go with it to examine this issue. If you think it's significantly higher than this, then I'm going to have to seriously disagree and this example will no longer apply.)

Now. We have a pile of 50,000 anecdotes that people have sent in. Statistically, 25,000 of these are likely to be accurate, and 25,000 are likely to contain at least some details that are inaccurate. How do we determine which anecdotes are accurate, and out of those that are not, how much of it is accurate?

If you have no answer to this, without referring to other forms of evidence to back up the testimony, then this whole discussion is entirely pointless in my opinion. Just stating that testimony can be accurate is of no practical use if you can't find out whether it is accurate.

[houseofcantor]

Someone needs their best kitten. That's what I witnessed.

Where are you going with this, OP? Is this about "the 500 witnesses?" 'Cause if it is, it's an ordinary vs. extraordinary situation. Considering how often people fuck up the ordinary, expectations are low for any extra. 

[robvalue]

I'm always interested in where things are going. I don't see the need for anyone to conceal this fact, at least in the form of a short summary, unless:

1- they don't know what the point is themselves

2- there is no point

3- it doesn't achieve the desired result and non-sequiturs are being implied

4- a dishonest agenda is afoot

I understand the idea of not confusing the current discussion, but a single line outlining the actual point of having the discussion in the first place is surely not too much to ask. Is it? If there is ever another genuine reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

I often find the irrelevant conclusion fallacy comes into effect in many discussions on this forum. That's why, like I've done here, I like to simply grant the whole claim for the sake of argument and see if it actually makes any difference to anything. You asked for a golden rocket launcher, here it is. Now what are you going to do with it? If you don't know, I sure as fuck don't.

[bennyboy]

I understand the idea of not confusing the current discussion, but a single line outlining the actual point of having the discussion in the first place is surely not too much to ask. Is it? If there is ever another genuine reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

He has stated, perhaps in his other nearly identical thread, that the purpose of all this is to undermine the theory of evolution by show how those against religious positions engage in the same (lack of) logic as they accuse religious folk of: reliance on unverified testimony, a bias toward hunch rather than proper evidence, etc.

In other words, he's trying to move the goalposts and lower the bar to such a degree that evolution must be discarded and religious ideas must be seriously considered.

[Nay_Sayer]

Funny you mention that, I have twice was many witnesses for the ascension of pasta, In which FSM came down and delivered onto the world his list of 10 things he'd rather you not do.

[Mudhammam]

Is this about "the 500 witnesses?"

In which case RR would be required to argue that his belief in the miraculous is justified on the following grounds: that sufficient evidence of the marvelous or miraculous may include simply trusting a single claimant whose character, apart from many indications of credulity, is largely unknown; who himself was probably trusting in the report(s) of one or more completely unknown, but probably equally credulous characters; and furthermore (the kicker), that given our knowledge of the nature of past circumstances, which include similar or identical claims, the inference that deception or delusion was involved for either the supposed witnesses or the subsequent reporters is to be considered more extraordinary than the report itself. He won't be able to argue this, of course, and so the appeal to the women, the Twelve, Peter, or James will similarly fail, placing the resurrection into the dustbin of strange ideas that have occasionally taken hold of otherwise intelligent folk, alongside forest nymphs that have sex with women, a disconcerting race of dog-headed people, angels, daemons, big foot, and little green aliens.

[robvalue]

I understand the idea of not confusing the current discussion, but a single line outlining the actual point of having the discussion in the first place is surely not too much to ask. Is it? If there is ever another genuine reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

He has stated, perhaps in his other nearly identical thread, that the purpose of all this is to undermine the theory of evolution by show how those against religious positions engage in the same (lack of) logic as they accuse religious folk of: reliance on unverified testimony, a bias toward hunch rather than proper evidence, etc.

In other words, he's trying to move the goalposts and lower the bar to such a degree that evolution must be discarded and religious ideas must be seriously considered.

Really? That is his goal? A giant tu quoque fallacy?

Wow. I sure hope it's more than that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'll see what he has to say to my questions.

If anyone thinks they can make religious claims look even as credible as scientific ones, let alone more, they have bitten off more than a magic lion can chew.

[houseofcantor]

I understand the idea of not confusing the current discussion, but a single line outlining the actual point of having the discussion in the first place is surely not too much to ask. Is it? If there is ever another genuine reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

He has stated, perhaps in his other nearly identical thread, that the purpose of all this is to undermine the theory of evolution by show how those against religious positions engage in the same (lack of) logic as they accuse religious folk of: reliance on unverified testimony, a bias toward hunch rather than proper evidence, etc.

In other words, he's trying to move the goalposts and lower the bar to such a degree that evolution must be discarded and religious ideas must be seriously considered.

Then he's a whackjob. 

Haven't been paying much attention because Fallout. 

[downbeatplumb]

Thank you for the replies, and particularly to the reasons I gave.   I will try to get to some in more detail tomorrow.  But I do have one question. 

I am aware of many of the studies you cited, and do not come to the same conclusion that witness testimony is unreliable.  But I do have a question for you.   Do you live believing that most of your memories of your life are largely inaccurate and unreliable to the truth?  I think we can all point to areas where we where mistaken in memory or we remember something differently from someone else.  But do you think that your picture of yourself is for the most part accurate?

My wife is convinced that we heard a bomb at a Metro station from a terrorist attack when we were on honey moon in Paris, we didn't, we only learnt about it when we got home and saw the papers but her memory has become muddled over time. Memory is like that, half the stuff you remember is probably wrong.

[IATIA]

I am aware of many of the studies you cited, and do not come to the same conclusion that witness testimony is unreliable.

Ergo, your main problem. "Empirical evidence" is a foreign phrase to you. It has been proven time and time again that eyewitness testimony is flawed and does not stand up to scrutiny.