Witness Evidence

[robvalue]

I suspect that the only witness testimony you are actually interested in raising the profile of here is that of an extraordinary nature. And the extraordinary nature is itself a reason to doubt testimony, either informally, or especially for formal situations such as history, science or in court. Not to say it is wrong, but to require further evidence as a matter of course.

Any testimony which even mentions something not comfirmed to exist or be possible should be met with the highest level of scepticism. The person is instantly deeming themselves an authority on identifying and correctly categorizing totally uncharted phenomena. No one has such authority. To believe them by default is to be gullible.

If I'm wrong, and you're just really interested in testimony in general, then carry on.

[bennyboy]

You do realize that you cannot repeat history right?

That's right. That's why it's so much more fun for some people to just make it up.

And even if you can repeat the outcome, that does not necessarily demonstrate the means.    Science isn't concerned with history (although it may be involved with it).  The focus of science doesn't care about what happens once, but cannot be repeated.

If you say all this, I think you don't know what science is. Science is the organized and methodical treatment of observable fact-- it does not necessarily require repeatable experimentation. You can't, for example, add a gram of calcium into a black hole in order to find out how it works.

   I once brought up alchemy in this regards, and that given good testimonial evidence would show that it did happen, even if there are unknown conditions where it cannot be repeated.   A friend who is also a chemist for an R&D firm, said they experienced this very thing. While trying to do something else, they accidently created a compound, that would be worth a lot of money to their company.   What they started with, what they did, and what the ended up with was all documented, and witnessed by a number of people.  Further, the spent a lot of money trying to replicate the results.   However the only physical evidence they ended up with is the final results.   However it not being repeatable is only evidence, that they do not know how they did it, not that it did not happen.

In your friend's case, if he had a hunch what caused the effect, and further experimentation didn't yield a positive result, he'd abandon his mistaken idea and work hard to replace it with a new theory. He wouldn't say, "In my heart of hearts, I feeeeel it has to be this way, so it must be true." That's not truth, it's wishy-thinking, and the point of establishing evidence isn't to add either the strength of feeling or the weight of numbers to wishy-thinking, but rather to remove these from the process of inquiry completely.

Here's your problem, as I see it: you are attempting to set up the hunch of human agency (aka testimonial) as a valid form of evidence, when it is the exact opposite of that.

[GrandizerII]

But ... but ... if I agree with you guys, how am I going to accept the validity of the testimonies of Jesus' resurrection? No, I must keep fighting and disagreeing! And I'll come up with more weird hypotheticals to prove my point!

[Thumpalumpacus]

So then none of you would press charges against me, unless there was physical evidence to show it was me, who shot you? With what you are describing any experience, even scientific endeavors seem to be questionable at best.

I'd report it to the police and let them gather evidence. Believe it or not, even the wound itself can corroborate or undermine my report -- things like entry size, exit wound, and transit path can address the facts as they happened, no matter how I remembered it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Turn it around: A person with whom you've had acrimonious exchanges is found shot dead. The gun is registered to you. Your fingerprints are on the gun, the bullets, and the victim's throat. A sheet of paper in your handwriting is found at the scene (with your prints on it), reading, 'I'm glad I killed the bastard.' Also, your left shoe (monogrammed) is found at the scene. When the police arrest you, they find the spent shell casings in your pocket, and these casings match the gun, the bullets, and the wounds on the victim's body. Traces of the victim's blood are found on your clothing, you fail the GSR test.

But I turn up at the police station and loudly proclaim that you were with me the whole time. This is eyewitness testimony. Should the police release you?

Boru

[bennyboy]

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.

Turn it around:  A person with whom you've had acrimonious exchanges is found shot dead.  The gun is registered to you.  Your fingerprints are on the gun, the bullets, and the victim's throat.  A sheet of paper in your handwriting is found at the scene (with your prints on it), reading, 'I'm glad I killed the bastard.'  Also, your left shoe (monogrammed) is found at the scene.  When the police arrest you, they find the spent shell casings in your pocket, and these casings match the gun, the bullets, and the wounds on the victim's body.  Traces of the victim's blood are found on your clothing, you fail the GSR test.

But I turn up at the police station and loudly proclaim that you were with me the whole time.  This is eyewitness testimony.  Should the police release you?

Boru

Since I have very strong feelings about my innocence, they should disregard all that so-called physical "evidence," and accept the testimony of my eyewitness.  Then they should call my mom and ask her if SHE thinks I could do it, because like everyone else most of my world view comes from my parents, and I could not be a murderer unless she made me one.

So if Mom says "He couldn't have done it," and shows sufficient conviction in this belief, the jury must acquit. Because in a religious world, that's how things work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Turn it around:  A person with whom you've had acrimonious exchanges is found shot dead.  The gun is registered to you.  Your fingerprints are on the gun, the bullets, and the victim's throat.  A sheet of paper in your handwriting is found at the scene (with your prints on it), reading, 'I'm glad I killed the bastard.'  Also, your left shoe (monogrammed) is found at the scene.  When the police arrest you, they find the spent shell casings in your pocket, and these casings match the gun, the bullets, and the wounds on the victim's body.  Traces of the victim's blood are found on your clothing, you fail the GSR test.

But I turn up at the police station and loudly proclaim that you were with me the whole time.  This is eyewitness testimony.  Should the police release you?

Boru

Since I have very strong feelings about my innocence, they should disregard all that so-called physical "evidence," and accept the testimony of my eyewitness.  Then they should call my mom and ask her if SHE thinks I could do it, because like everyone else most of my world view comes from my parents, and I could not be a murderer unless she made me one.

So if Mom says "He couldn't have done it," and shows sufficient conviction in this belief, the jury must acquit.  Because in a religious world, that's how things work.

Curses! benny plays the Mum card. *gnashes teeth and twirls mustache in frustration*

Boru

[robvalue]

"I'm glad I killed the bastard!"

Haha Blackadder fallacy

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Turn it around: A person with whom you've had acrimonious exchanges is found shot dead. The gun is registered to you. Your fingerprints are on the gun, the bullets, and the victim's throat. A sheet of paper in your handwriting is found at the scene (with your prints on it), reading, 'I'm glad I killed the bastard.' Also, your left shoe (monogrammed) is found at the scene. When the police arrest you, they find the spent shell casings in your pocket, and these casings match the gun, the bullets, and the wounds on the victim's body. Traces of the victim's blood are found on your clothing, you fail the GSR test.

But I turn up at the police station and loudly proclaim that you were with me the whole time. This is eyewitness testimony. Should the police release you?

Boru

No... With what has been given, I would say the case is much stronger against me.

[The Grand Nudger]

What happened to the reliability of eyewitness testimony? Don't tell me that you also, after all of this bullshit, defer to evidence over testimony....that would be silly.