I have often been told by atheist that witness testimony and observation either isn't evidence, or is evidence of poor quality. I question this notion.
Yes there are issues within witness testimony and observations of humans in general. The nature of memory will attempt to fill in gaps. People can lie, be biased and mistaken. Yet we trust in our own and others observations all the time. It would be impossible to live your life without believing that our observances are mostly accurate of reality. And if we lived based on our own experience alone, the world would be a very small place. Our view of reality is greater, by comparing our view of reality to others. I would make the case, that not only is witness testimony evidence, but it is one of the strongest evidences we have.
You can find a number of articles and even professional opinions if you do an internet search for the reliability of witness testimony. However if you look closely at what they are saying, it is about specific issues within the topic. They do not say that observation is unreliable as a whole (if they did, I would ask how they knew this). If there are issues with another form of evidence such as DNA identification, do you throw it out completely, or do you try and identify and limit the errors to keep what is good?
So what strengthens testimony (or the lack of decreases it's worth). Collaborating testimonies and evidence can verify what a witness reports. As with any evidence multiple pieces that tell the same story are less likely to be in error in the same way. Time and proximity lessen error. Familiarity will make a testimony more reliable; we can better recognize what we know. We may mistake some details in what we remember or some thing may have more focus or less (given the person witnessing and perspective). But it is rarely completely inaccurate (short of lying).
I'm not saying that witness testimony is the be all... end all. Any evidence needs to be evaluated in light of all other evidence (pro and con), and in regard to it's strengths and weaknesses. And depending on the circumstances, witness testimony may not be reliable at all. Even biases or motivation to lie, can be a strength or weakness (or it may be of null value). It needs to be dealt with given the circumstances and considerations for each account. Hasty generalizations about all testimony and without looking at the facts is both naïve and I believe impossible to live.
Yes there are issues within witness testimony and observations of humans in general. The nature of memory will attempt to fill in gaps. People can lie, be biased and mistaken. Yet we trust in our own and others observations all the time. It would be impossible to live your life without believing that our observances are mostly accurate of reality. And if we lived based on our own experience alone, the world would be a very small place. Our view of reality is greater, by comparing our view of reality to others. I would make the case, that not only is witness testimony evidence, but it is one of the strongest evidences we have.
- Every other piece of evidence has to go through our senses and minds. Therefore every other evidence is subject to observation and the problems that all humans suffer from.
- Testimony is more inclusive. Short of video evidence where each individual can review what happened (and more than once), human observance can tell you more about what actually happened more than any other evidence. Tests may be able to tell you if the person was in the room (at some time) or that the person has fired a gun recently. I'm not saying that other evidence is insignificant, but that witness testimony can often tell you more. Witnesses can even tell you about the demeanor of the person before, during, or after the crime.
- The sequence of events can be determined. This can also lead to collaborating evidence.
- Witnesses seen what happened. So we can have direct evidence without inference. (although sometimes it can be difficult to get a witness to give you only what they seen, without interpreting what it means).
- Testimony can give you evidence for things that leave no other physical evidence.
- Many in intelligence and investigative professions rely heavily on witness testimony.
- Observation is the best evidence for what is possible.
You can find a number of articles and even professional opinions if you do an internet search for the reliability of witness testimony. However if you look closely at what they are saying, it is about specific issues within the topic. They do not say that observation is unreliable as a whole (if they did, I would ask how they knew this). If there are issues with another form of evidence such as DNA identification, do you throw it out completely, or do you try and identify and limit the errors to keep what is good?
So what strengthens testimony (or the lack of decreases it's worth). Collaborating testimonies and evidence can verify what a witness reports. As with any evidence multiple pieces that tell the same story are less likely to be in error in the same way. Time and proximity lessen error. Familiarity will make a testimony more reliable; we can better recognize what we know. We may mistake some details in what we remember or some thing may have more focus or less (given the person witnessing and perspective). But it is rarely completely inaccurate (short of lying).
I'm not saying that witness testimony is the be all... end all. Any evidence needs to be evaluated in light of all other evidence (pro and con), and in regard to it's strengths and weaknesses. And depending on the circumstances, witness testimony may not be reliable at all. Even biases or motivation to lie, can be a strength or weakness (or it may be of null value). It needs to be dealt with given the circumstances and considerations for each account. Hasty generalizations about all testimony and without looking at the facts is both naïve and I believe impossible to live.
