Witness Evidence

[robvalue]

Also, keep in mind the kind of people you're interacting with here. You're not talking to naive illiterates who are easily impressed by good rhetoric. So whatever it is you're about to post soon, it better be really worth considering.

Good point. I don't know what theists are generally trying to achieve on this forum (the ones that don't actually interact outside of religious debate) but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with changing our opinions.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[Edwardo Piet]

Indeed Rob: Scientific evidence is the strongest kind of evidence around, regardless of whether it's a legal setting or not

[robvalue]

Exactly.

Just because a certain kind/strength of evidence has been accepted in court at some point, that doesn't mean it was the right decision to be accepted.

[Edwardo Piet]

When the scientific evidence isn't available they're just kind of desperate to get at the truth basically.

But it is innocent until "proven" guilty and there's no proof in court because there isn't even any proof in science.

Sure letting a serious criminal go free would be horrible, but wrongly convicting an innocent person for several decades isn't exactly great either.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

When the scientific evidence isn't available they're just kind of desperate to get at the truth basically.

But it is innocent until "proven" guilty and there's no proof in court because there isn't even any proof in science.

Sure letting a serious criminal go free would be horrible, but wrongly convicting an innocent person for several decades isn't exactly great either.

With respect, Evie, I think you have that backward. (But to your defense, so do our courts.)

Sure wrongly convicting an innocent person would be horrible, but letting a serious criminal go free isn't exactly great either.

A murderer who is not convicted is, to me, almost infinitely better than convicting an innocent person. 

It does bother me when those who are adoring of authority point to the courts as their example of, "See? This would be evidence in court!" I always refer them to Ambrose Bierce:

INADMISSIBLE, adj. 

Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.

     But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

[Edwardo Piet]

A murderer who is not convicted is, to me, almost infinitely better than convicting an innocent person. 

I completely agree. My second statement was meant to be a massive understatement. Sorry that wasn't clear.
By "not exactly great" I meant "too fucking horrific for words".

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Actually I was mostly joking.... Sometimes I try to use these arguments with the same criteria and often pick evolution, because it really gets those who advocate scientism going.   Evolution is extraordinary, and hasn't met the extraordinary requirements for evidence....  The I just go to saying that there is no evidence at all and they are just stories.....   Think about it... how much of this science have you personally experienced.  Or are you believing the stories written down in books. Do you know that anyone is actually doing these experiments, or just a bunch of people writing books, and collecting a paycheck.    The advantages of this, is you really don't have to know anything about the subject, and it doesn't require much research.  You cannot really reason with these arguments because they are not based on anything objective. 

However most people don't realize when I'm done that you can make these arguments against anything you choose not to believe.   If something goes against your beliefs, you just turn the hyper-skepticism on, and go at it.  You go to modernism where everything has to be absolutely certain.  Except when it turns back to your own beliefs, and then you remember that little can be absolutely certain. 

It's not normally effective, but it sometimes is fun.   However, I don't really believe the arguments, so I can't keep it up for very long.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

How do you know, that you did not hear it.... did you think that you heard something before you saw it on the news?

[RoadRunner79]

One more tip, and this isn't meant to be insulting, it applies to everyone: don't assume you must be right. That way leads to terrible arguments and twisting of evidence. Instead, have an open mind to all possibilities and see where sound logic applied to proper evidence leads you. It's only by using this method that I've discovered the times I have been completely wrong myself.

Check your assumptions. This is often where the problems can start. A false or unsupported assumption poisons the whole affair. Those in search of truth should try to make as few assumptions as possible.

Yes, and I agree that it applies to everyone.   And despite the many assumptions and people who took a little information and invent an entire story about it (concerning my posts).   This is the reason, that I started this thread and the one on Extraordinary Evidence.  It's why I also avoided any of those who attempted to make them into a theology discussion.   I am interested in discussing these arguments, not the results from them.

I think my mind naturally works based on principles.  You may find, that I end up questioning the principle or going to the reasons for the assertion, rather than the details themselves first, then I apply the specifics to the principle. I do self reflect quite a bit, and also notice patterns and the different ways of that others discuss and think.   How is the thinking is different, not just the conclusion (what are their methods)?