Witness Evidence

[downbeatplumb]

People also lie and selectively report. The news at the moment is full of stories that show muslims in a bad light, but the fact that the guard at the French stadium who prevented the suicide bombers entry was also muslim not mentioned because it does not fit the narrative of all muslims bad.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the idea that you can have a cut-and-dried standard is laughably naive, and indicative of your lack of real thinking on this matter. Equivocating different events of vastly different likelihood so that you can arrive at one standard, which you will then use to push your silly beliefs, is disingenuous.

You can protest all you want, but your stubborn refusal to engage your own thinking when confronted with contrary information marks you as either incredibly dumb, or dishonest. And quite frankly, you don't strike me as dumb. I see no need to feed your transparent attempt to draw a false equivalence between reality and your particular fairy tale.

You've been shown why eyewitness testimony is not reliable. You've also been shown why the scientific endeavor is not eyewitness testimony. You refuse to take that information aboard.

Your ignorance is of your own making.

[RoadRunner79]

I think the idea that you can have a cut-and-dried standard is laughably naive, and indicative of your lack of real thinking on this matter. Equivocating different events of vastly different likelihood so that you can arrive at one standard, which you will then use to push your silly beliefs, is disingenuous.

If not a reasonable standard, then what do you propose (wishy thinking and feelings).  That is not objective either.  Using probability or likelihood of an event to determine the truth is difficult.  Probability deals with statistical sets, not individual occurrences.  Unlikely or improbable events do happen.  Also are you referring to unlikely in frequency, your a priori beliefs, or what?  

You can protest all you want, but your stubborn refusal to engage your own thinking when confronted with contrary information marks you as either incredibly dumb, or dishonest.  And quite frankly, you don't strike me as dumb. I see no need to feed your transparent attempt to draw a false equivalence between reality and your particular fairy tale.

What do you think that I have refused to engage in and what contrary information do you think I am denying? Perhaps I can clarify if you have misunderstood.   It does occur to me, that we can know what is real, by others sharing a reasonably similar experience.  I have run into odd occurrences at work, where I am grateful that other people can validate what I think I saw and confirm or deny it (especially things which occur quickly).

You've been shown why eyewitness testimony is not reliable. You've also been shown why the scientific endeavor is not eyewitness testimony. You refuse to take that information aboard.

I have been shown that testimony and memory does suffer from certain issues (and acknowledge this).  And I do still plan on addressing this, after I go through all of the references provided.  I had a rough week at work, and nothing went as it should, so I have not been able to spend the time I had planned on it.  A large part of my review however is going to deal with the mistake of claiming that something with is true of a part, is true of the whole.  

When science is making a claim about how things work, this is repeatable, and differs from historical testimony in this manner.  A number of other people can repeat the process, and verify the results of how it worked.  The difference here is that the claims are based on the consistency of nature, and not a historical isolated incident.  However, the similarity is in claims made about what is observed, and either confirmed or denied by others.  And for this I rely on their testimony and others who can claim to have observed the same thing (whether they agree or disagree).  I then may have to apply critical thinking to come up with a picture of what actually occurred and account for any differences. All these scientist could be lying, mistaken, or delusional, which is why I apply the same criteria to their testimony as I do others. I am not so naïve to think that a white lab coat makes one immune to the human condition, or absolved from the very same flaws, which have been addressed here in regards to testimony.  Yes, there are differences, but those for the most part have not been addressed. If you want to discuss them, then we go over how they relate to other testimony as the topic of the thread.

[bennyboy]

Okay, RR, let's just get to the elephant in the room. Sometimes testimony, however weak and unreliable it is, is the best source of information we have access to. So if one of my kids breaks a flowerpot, I'll ask the most trusted one who dunnit, and I might even act solely on that basis. But that's not really because I consider the testimony good evidence; it's because it lets me make a quick call and get back to watching the game.

However, I (can I say we?) suspect that you are trying to establish testimony as a possible "best" source of information, not in specific senses like this but in a general sense, and that once you've established the validity of testiomony as a source of evidence, you're going to start shoveling religious bullshit and saying, "You weren't there so you have to accept the testimony given in Scripture." We have pre-emptively announced that we think this kind of testimony is invalid for a variety of reasons.

I, for one, seriously doubt you have a deep and abiding interest in the nature of testimony for its own sake. I believe we've seen right through you from page one, and that you've been working very hard to pretend this discussion is about anything else than an indirect attempt at proselytizing.

Tell me I'm wrong about you. Tell me this thread isn't about using people's wishy-thinking and thousands-year-old documents as a foundation for the "reality" of Jesus Christ my Personal Savior, for whom there is no better evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

[Kitan Etos]

[Kitan Etos]

Through logic/reason, personal experience, and testimony from others.

Also.

Personal experience is not universal experience. It cannot and should not be exploited through religion to con others into a belief system that relies upon falsities.

Testimony, according to a dictionary definition, is: a public recounting of a religious conversion or experience. There is the word experience again, and how much do you want to bet that it is personal?

[IATIA]

[bennyboy]

There are three ways to gain knowledge. Through logic/reason, personal experience, and testimony from others. I wished to discuss the latter.  I have had a number of people of conversations where people outright deny testimony in certain situations.  In others they lean towards scientism. I believe both are incorrect.  This is not to say that every testimony is good, or that science is not profitable for knowledge.  To just deny testimony or automatically label them as fables is to remove a key portion of our path to knowledge.

Okay, let's say I learn about physics from the "testimony" of a professor. I may believe what he says or I may not. Let's say I do not-- now what? Either he will have to demonstrate the truth of his testimony, or I will have to decide whether it's worth listening to him anymore. The implication, and it's an important one, is that I COULD choose, at any time, to question him, and to demand a means by which to attain the knowledge through personal experience.

Let's say a professor claims to have produced cold fusion. I get excited and say "Show me, show me!" and he starts talking about how only he can understand the readouts on the computer, how only he has the right stuff to intepret the data, and that it is very important that I "just believe" him. How should I respond?

The kind of testimony you are talking about lacks this important criterion: that if I don't believe, someone will be able to bring to my personal experience whatever they are testifying about. So if I don't believe John Smith murdered Jane Doe, and have only your word for it, then I will disregard your testimony. If I don't believe Jesus died and was resurrected three days later, then your testimony to that effect is unlikely to change my mind.

Now, in neither case does my disbelief have anything to do with the truth. It may be that John Smith DID murder Jane Doe. It may be that Jesus DID die and get resurrected. However, I've met enough liars and fools in my life, and heard enough obviously false testimony, that I'm unlikely to spend much time considering hearsay. There's just nothing in it for me.

[ignoramus]

"In others they lean towards scientism"

There's that evil religion again, "scientism"!

Where they wear white lab coats to look professional when all along they force any outcome based on the methodology!
They're so confused, they'll change their hypothesis at the drop of a hat to suit any old result! No scruples at all!