Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 4, 2015 at 12:50 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It's pretty obvious to me, that people cannot discuss this, without making assumptions about where they think it is headed and what I'm going to do. It appears a way to divert away from discussing rationally.
Testimony comes from the Latin word "testis" (root) and "testimonium"(1). Meaning "witness" or "witness thereof" respectively. That is knowledge that comes as a result of the witness and transmission of another. This is all I'm discussing in this regard; and to the dismissal of knowledge simply because it comes from testimony. I think that this is ridiculous as an argument, especially as it is easy to show that it is not held consistently. For instance, you want me to accept your testimony, or the testimony of some expert, but then use "it's testimony" as the reason to dismiss another claim. I think this requires more, and that as a reason for dismissal is insufficient.
Evidence is "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"(2) In your comparison I think that you are speaking of something other than what I am for testimony (perhaps you can clarify). Testimony would be evidence, acquired in a specific manner. Also your "difference" between testimony and evidence seems somewhat circular. The only thing that makes since to me is that you are trying to say that testimony equals conclusion, where as evidence equals reason. I would disagree, as the testimony is about witness, not the conclusion.
Etymology is fun, and I like it too. But since your OP is about witness evidence, and you've used it interchangeably with testimony, that was pretty obvious.
And witness does not really add much to the definition of evidence you provided. Witness does not constitute an "available body of facts," and is not a reliable source of information when new ideas are being tested. It's also been shown that witness evidence is weak even for simple things like "What color were the perp's eyes?"
But I don't see why this thread is continuing. Everyone here gets that sometimes we rely on the words of others (whatever term you use) because there's no better info, or because there's no reason not to believe what they say. If, however, there is a controversy, then witness evidence is almost automatically discounted, in almost all contexts.
(December 4, 2015 at 8:54 am)IATIA Wrote: Regardless of what some may think your goal is, it does not change the fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Even if a witness is able to perfectly recall an event, there is no way to corroborate that without evidence that makes the eyewitness testimony moot.
One of the criticisms of Hume in this matter, is that he has to rely on testimony in order to criticize it. I think that you are going to run into the same issue. Why should I accept your testimony that testimony is unreliable?
And a further question directed to anyone.... What does it mean that testimony is unreliable and how do we apply that?
(December 4, 2015 at 12:50 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It's pretty obvious to me, that people cannot discuss this, without making assumptions about where they think it is headed and what I'm going to do. It appears a way to divert away from discussing rationally.
Testimony comes from the Latin word "testis" (root) and "testimonium"(1). Meaning "witness" or "witness thereof" respectively. That is knowledge that comes as a result of the witness and transmission of another. This is all I'm discussing in this regard; and to the dismissal of knowledge simply because it comes from testimony. I think that this is ridiculous as an argument, especially as it is easy to show that it is not held consistently. For instance, you want me to accept your testimony, or the testimony of some expert, but then use "it's testimony" as the reason to dismiss another claim. I think this requires more, and that as a reason for dismissal is insufficient.
Evidence is "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"(2) In your comparison I think that you are speaking of something other than what I am for testimony (perhaps you can clarify). Testimony would be evidence, acquired in a specific manner. Also your "difference" between testimony and evidence seems somewhat circular. The only thing that makes since to me is that you are trying to say that testimony equals conclusion, where as evidence equals reason. I would disagree, as the testimony is about witness, not the conclusion.
Etymology is fun, and I like it too. But since your OP is about witness evidence, and you've used it interchangeably with testimony, that was pretty obvious.
And witness does not really add much to the definition of evidence you provided. Witness does not constitute an "available body of facts," and is not a reliable source of information when new ideas are being tested. It's also been shown that witness evidence is weak even for simple things like "What color were the perp's eyes?"
Quote:But I don't see why this thread is continuing. Everyone here gets that sometimes we rely on the words of others (whatever term you use) because there's no better info, or because there's no reason not to believe what they say. If, however, there is a controversy, then witness evidence is almost automatically discounted, in almost all contexts.
Are you saying that testimony is for those who believe, but is of no use to those who do not?
Also, I posted a link earlier, in which a number of cases where good testimony could withstand other physical evidence. The stronger evidence, which provided a clearer picture of what had occurred was followed. Do you disagree with this?
Here is what the "witnesses" said in the immediate aftermath of the killing ( i.e., before they knew it had been taped).
Quote:Officers got out of their car and began approaching McDonald, again telling him to drop the knife, Camden said. The boy allegedly lunged at police, and one of the officers opened fire.
He did not lunge at the cops. He was walking away. The "eye-witnesses" lied their fucking asses off.
(December 4, 2015 at 11:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And a further question directed to anyone.... What does it mean that testimony is unreliable and how do we apply that?
Obviously this whole thread has just passed you by. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony has been proven again and again and shown to you from every which way but loose. (oops, wrong thread ) The problem is that you refuse to accept this fact as it does not fit in with your agenda.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
(December 4, 2015 at 11:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And a further question directed to anyone.... What does it mean that testimony is unreliable and how do we apply that?
Obviously this whole thread has just passed you by. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony has been proven again and again and shown to you from every which way but loose. (oops, wrong thread ) The problem is that you refuse to accept this fact as it does not fit in with your agenda.
What I have seen is a lot of is the same as here. Re-enforce the claim, and an attempt to re-direct the focus to my supposed agenda (oh and declare victory somewhere along the line). Pretty much the usual atheist MO in my experience. And I still don't know how you's would answer the question I posted above. From what I can gather, according to your views, I don't even need to acknowledge the testimony that you offered against testimony.
December 5, 2015 at 8:14 am (This post was last modified: December 5, 2015 at 8:17 am by bennyboy.)
(December 4, 2015 at 11:48 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(December 4, 2015 at 11:32 pm)IATIA Wrote: Obviously this whole thread has just passed you by. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony has been proven again and again and shown to you from every which way but loose. (oops, wrong thread ) The problem is that you refuse to accept this fact as it does not fit in with your agenda.
What I have seen is a lot of is the same as here. Re-enforce the claim, and an attempt to re-direct the focus to my supposed agenda (oh and declare victory somewhere along the line). Pretty much the usual atheist MO in my experience. And I still don't know how you's would answer the question I posted above. From what I can gather, according to your views, I don't even need to acknowledge the testimony that you offered against testimony.
"Testimony is unreliable" means that witness statements are not generally something you can count on to be either accurate or truthful. Tape measures, scales and thermometers are infinitely better in that capacity.
We would apply this by not accepting witness statements as evidence in any context where being able to establish the veracity of evidence is important to us.
You can keep running in circles all day, but the answer is just going to be the same all day: people are full of shit, and so relying on them to establish truth is likely to lead to shitty conclusions. . . like the existence of Sky Daddy who reserves a place in hell for masturbating teens, for example.
(December 5, 2015 at 8:25 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Stop trying to bait the trap. No one here is taking the bait. You might as well move on to your next attempt/position/argument.
(December 5, 2015 at 8:14 am)bennyboy Wrote: "Testimony is unreliable" means that witness statements are not generally something you can count on to be either accurate or truthful. Tape measures, scales and thermometers are infinitely better in that capacity.
I suppose that it depends on what you mean by accurate. If you are saying that a person judging a value by just observation. I would agree a tape measure, scale or thermometer is going to have a much tighter tolerance. I would also expect the judgement to vary between people (some people are going to be better than others). If you mean, that people are not accurate in reporting what they have seen or experienced, then this would also apply to people telling you about the tape measures and scales. It would also apply to your personal observation not just testimony (one of the other ways of gaining knowledge).
As to being truthful, this can equally apply to any type of testimony including those which while the method may be more accurate (utilizing tape measures and thermometers), the report may not be truthful or completely accurate. This is why I do believe that multiple independent accounts are valuable.
Quote:We would apply this by not accepting witness statements as evidence in any context where being able to establish the veracity of evidence is important to us.
So we have to see it for ourselves? And then we have to trust that our observations are accurate... correct?
Quote:You can keep running in circles all day, but the answer is just going to be the same all day: people are full of shit, and so relying on them to establish truth is likely to lead to shitty conclusions. . .
) The problem is that you refuse to accept this fact as it does not fit in with your agenda.
