Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Is this the terminus of your brilliant argument against common descent?

Next.

Nope.... Is this your way of avoiding the discussion at hand?

[GrandizerII]

And then it becomes a memory to someone else....who can testify to it.  Do you believe things based on the observation and testimony of others?  Are you sure that they are not mistaken?

In general, I'm not sure that they are not mistaken, that's the point. But I do believe scientific observations should be placed on a much higher level of reliability than personal observations or testimonies. I think that's very reasonable given the scientific method and how science is done.

[GrandizerII]

Not irrelevant, unreliable. But anyway in the real world, there should be some physical evidence supporting what we believe about ourselves and the world.

Do you believe you are a relatively honest or good person?  Can you please supply testable, repeatable physical evidence please?

What does "relatively honest" and "good" mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is this the terminus of your brilliant argument against common descent?

Next.

Nope.... Is this your way of avoiding the discussion at hand?

What are we supposed to be discussing...can you prove that we even had a discussion, isn't that "just a memory"? Or, would you violate your own premise and argument - to show evidence that a discussion was ongoing..in the form of quoting me rather than relying on your "eyewitness testimony", for example?

Next.

(I've been meaning to ask, btw, what's your beef /w common descent anyway, specifically? Why do you feel that you need to compose an argument against it?)

[RoadRunner79]

What are we supposed to be discussing...can you prove that we even had a discussion, isn't that "just a memory"?  Or, would you violate your own premise and argument - to show evidence that a discussion was ongoing..in the form of quoting me rather than relying on your "eyewitness testimony", for example?

Next.

I think that you are mistaken, I'm not making any argument against utilizing all the evidence and evaluating them in light of their strengths and weaknesses.  I'm not saying that witness testimony always trumps the other physical evidence left behind (that is going to depend on specifics to the case).  There are weaknesses in what the physical evidence can tell you...  With many things you will need to make inferences based on that evidence.  For instance, someone mentioned gun powder tests to determine if I had shot a gun in the previous example.   I live in North central Pennsylvania in the middle of hunting season.  Most people I know have fired a gun recently.  DNA can be transferred and indicate the wrong person.  Nothing is perfect when humans are involved.


As well, I do believe that you can make a strong case using abductive reasoning. However, I think that direct observation and testimony is often better than inference.  I don't believe in scientism and do not elevate science to unreasonable heights nor think it is the only method of determining truth.  It is a useful tool in determining some forms of truth, and so long as it is valid (science is full of discarded theories, once thought to be true). 

(I've been meaning to ask, btw, what's your beef /w common descent anyway, specifically? Why do you feel that you need to compose an argument against it?)

Actually, I'm only skeptical of common descent. I don't make an argument against it, but I'm not convinced by the inferences that it has, and often find them circular (try explaining common descent without invoking itself). I do lean slightly against it, because I believe that the fossil record shows punctuated equilibrium, and fails to demonstrate common descent. It's just fun to argue, that because I have not seen the thousands of fossils and physical evidence, that I can some how claim it is all a myth, the result of lies or delusions. I do find it's claims extraordinary especially when presented in a naturalistic sense. For some, that means I can just ignore evidence and claim there is none. But I find most of the people who use the "extraordinary claimes" philosophy do not accept it in this case.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you are mistaken, I'm not making any argument against utilizing all the evidence and evaluating them in light of their strengths and weaknesses.  I'm not saying that witness testimony always trumps the other physical evidence left behind (that is going to depend on specifics to the case).  There are weaknesses in what the physical evidence can tell you...  With many things you will need to make inferences based on that evidence.  For instance, someone mentioned gun powder tests to determine if I had shot a gun in the previous example.   I live in North central Pennsylvania in the middle of hunting season.  Most people I know have fired a gun recently.  DNA can be transferred and indicate the wrong person.  Nothing is perfect when humans are involved.

That would be a great alibi... "I've been hunting recently officer" -but it would take more than your word to make it hold, and it wouldn't explain how your bullet got into his leg, lol.

As well, I do believe that you can make a strong case using abductive reasoning. However, I think that direct observation and testimony is often better than inference.  I don't believe in scientism and do not elevate science to unreasonable heights nor think it is the only method of determining truth.  It is a useful tool in determining some forms of truth, and so long as it is valid (science is full of discarded theories, once thought to be true).

Then what you think is directly at odds with any study done on the subject, as has already been mentioned.  Eyewitness testimony is simply unreliable.  Not sure how scientism made it's way in here, but if science were less reliable, or unreliable...that wouldn't make eyewitness testimony any -more- reliable.  

Actually, I'm only skeptical of common descent.  I don't make an argument against it, but I'm not convinced by the inferences that it has, and often find them circular (try explaining common descent without invoking itself).  I guess it wasn;I do lean slightly against it, because I believe that the fossil record shows punctuated equilibrium, and fails to demonstrate common descent.  It's just fun to argue, that because I have not seen the thousands of fossils and physical evidence, that I can some how claim it is all a myth, the result of lies or delusions.   I do find it's claims extraordinary especially when presented in a naturalistic sense.  For some, that means I can just ignore evidence and claim there is none.  But I find most of the people who use the "extraordinary claimes" philosophy do not accept it in this case.

Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to say for or against common descent, and the fossil record isn't the primary or best evidence -for- common descent.  That would be DNA.   Your objections are non-objections........?  If that's why you're skeptical, then you're skeptical for no reason at all.

[robvalue]

This is getting rather silly. Are you really using the argument that we wouldn't press charges because our own memory that you shot us could be unreliable? Yes, it could be wrong. The chances of us being wrong are slim. You're now setting up a false dichotomy where my memories must be 100% reliable to me or else they are worthless to me. That's absurd, and you know it. Obviously, I wouldn't press charges against you unless I felt confident you shot me. If I've made a mistake, then the lack of physical evidence is exactly what will rectify it.

However, from the point of view of someone else who wasn't actually there, like the jury, they have no way to know that my testimony is true.

You're conflating what we know and what we can demonstrate, as I alluded to a few posts ago. If you're interested in the truth, then what you can demonstrate is all that matters. So if you shot me, then what is needed to demonstrate this is physical evidence. Just my say so, even if I am virtually certain it is true, is not evidence to anyone else. Surely you must understand this?

As I said before, why do you care about witness testimony? If we all just agreed testimony is awesome, would that be it? Is there a problem with the legal system you think needs addressing by promoting the importance of witness testimony?

If you found yourself on false charges by a group of people who all said you shot someone, I bet you'd be pretty quick to demand they also present some physical evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

This is getting rather silly. Are you really using the argument that we wouldn't press charges because our own memory that you shot us could be unreliable? Yes, it could be wrong. The chances of us being wrong are slim. You're now setting up a false dichotomy where my memories must be 100% reliable to me or else they are worthless to me. That's absurd, and you know it. Obviously, I wouldn't press charges against you unless I felt confident you shot me. If I've made a mistake, then the lack of physical evidence is exactly what will rectify it.

However, from the point of view of someone else who wasn't actually there, like the jury, they have no way to know that my testimony is true.

You're conflating what we know and what we can demonstrate, as I alluded to a few posts ago. If you're interested in the truth, then what you can demonstrate is all that matters. So if you shot me, then what is needed to demonstrate this is physical evidence. Just my say so, even if I am virtually certain it is true, is not evidence to anyone else. Surely you must understand this?

As I said before, why do you care about witness testimony? If we all just agreed testimony is awesome, would that be it? Is there a problem with the legal system you think needs addressing by promoting the importance of witness testimony?

If you found yourself on false charges by a group of people who all said you shot someone, I bet you'd be pretty quick to demand they also present some physical evidence.

So you don't believe the science when your own memories are concerned, and are willing to act on them then I see. You are correct, that we do need to demonstrate to others what had happened. And that is on the basis of all the evidence available to reconstruct what most likely happened. Their may be outliers, and things we need to put to the side which do not fit. This may be true for both testimony and physical evidence. That is why we have people trained to investigate crimes, history, and science.

If I found myself on trial and knew the testimony of others was mistaken, then I would want any strong evidence I could provide, that places me somewhere else or opposes the other evidence. This would include good witness testimony. How about you? Would witnesses be good evidence you where not guilty, if you where found falsely accused? I can confidently say, that I don't think I would want you lot on my jury.

[robvalue]

You're suggesting that because I can't rely on other people's testimony, I can't even make use of any of my own memories ever to make any decisions.

I just got through explaining why this is absurd. You quoted me doing so.

EDIT: I was being a bit harsh. Redacted the rest. Apologies if you read it already.

[robvalue]

(I don't care if the whole of the bible happened word for word. It makes no difference to me. I'd just be a theist rather than an atheist if it was true. Just thought I'd mention that.)

Yes I do apply the "science" to myself. I don't assume my memories are always correct. In fact, I've often overruled my memories as unreliable because I have reason to do so. But you want a false dichotomy where either my memories are totally reliable or worthless, to me. That's not reality, that's binary thinking which is sadly extremely common in debates with theists. I made a whole topic about it here. Whether or not a whole other person's testimony is reliable to me is a completely different question.

Whether it's reliable for a court, or for science, is yet another question. These are not all the same issue.