Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

By showing that it is objective, rather than subjective.

How might one go about that?

---

I see the problem now.

1. "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable." You are taking all witness testimony as a whole and applying to it the fact that some testimony is unreliable. This is an excellent example of the fallacy of composition. This premise is obviously fallacious because some amount of testimony is reliable. 

She didn't say that testimony is unreliable, therefore no testimony is reliable. Her point was that testimony is unreliable, therefore you shouldn't convict someone based solely on testimony, without corroborating evidence.

Yes, that is pretty much what she said. "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable" as a premise must stand on its own. So is every case of witness testimony demonstrably unreliable? No, it is not. She therefore took what applies to a certain percentage and applied it to the whole as her premise. A fallacy of composition. 

But setting that aside, why do you add in "shouldn't convict someone..."?? That was not in the discussion and is only a narrow application of witness testimony of which she was not even talking about. Here are a few categories where formal testimony is weighed:

Criminal Courts (even in criminal courts, testimony is not limited to the guilt of a person. It often could be just establishing context or other facts of the matter.)
Civil Courts
Family Courts
Government Hearings
Current event reporting (news)
Historical attestations (formally writing or speaking of events that where witnessed) 

In my observation, to make this (a general discussion of witness testimony) into a "wrongful conviction" discussion is an attempt to strengthen a weak argument by appealing to people's sense of injustice rather than reasoning.

[LadyForCamus]

Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence. Jesus. Was my meaning really not apparant to you, Steve? Or were you just seizing an opportunity to go off on a tangent based solely on a technicality?

There. Previous post edited for the poop in your pants.

[SteveII]

I see the problem now.

1. "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable." You are taking all witness testimony as a whole and applying to it the fact that some testimony is unreliable. This is an excellent example of the fallacy of composition. This premise is obviously fallacious because some amount of testimony is reliable. 

2. I have no problem with this. However often the only corroborating evidence is more testimony. As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, billions of events every day happen where there is no lasting physical evidence that can be examined. 

3. Your syllogism collapsed because the first premise is a fallacy. So we are back to mine -- tell me where I erred:

     1' A witness's recollection could be wrong
     2' The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
     3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
     4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context

You do nothing more than make your arguments irrelevant by doing nothing more than re-asserting it. Show some actual evidence that testimony is reliable, especially in the face of all the cases where testimony got someone convicted and physical evidence got them exonerated.

Your fist sentence makes no sense. 

For your other point, see my response to Mister Agenda above.

[Ravenshire]

You do nothing more than make your arguments irrelevant by doing nothing more than re-asserting it. Show some actual evidence that testimony is reliable, especially in the face of all the cases where testimony got someone convicted and physical evidence got them exonerated.

Your fist sentence makes no sense. 

For your other point, see my response to Mister Agenda above.

Them your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Before I dumb it down for you, please save us some time and tell me how dumbed down it needs to be. Will second grade do it?

[LadyForCamus]

Your fist sentence makes no sense. 

For your other point, see my response to Mister Agenda above.

Them your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Before I dumb it down for you, please save us some time and tell me how dumbed down it needs to be. Will second grade do it?

Not likely.  Let me run it by my three-year-old, and I'll let you know how low you gotta go. 😏

[RoadRunner79]

Well it was wing night, and I've had a few beers... so I apologize if it I wasn't quite clear.

Mmmmm...beer. Anything particularly tasty and refreshing?

Yards pale ale.... after I ordered it, I was worried it wouldn't have much flavor, but it was pretty good.

---

So if I can make the same arguements against DNA evidence, that are made against witness testimony, the same conclusion would follow. Does anyone disagree?

[LadyForCamus]

Apparently, Steve treats all un-evidenced premises that he's taken a personal shine to the same way he treats his un-evidenced premise of god existence- by trying to logically argue them into reality. Arguments are not, and never will be evidence, Steve-O.

[RoadRunner79]

How have I burned a bridge with you?  It's not like I'm accusing you of lying or dishonesty every other post.

You have to understand that in this thread and others, people took you seriously for several posts, became dissatisfied with the way you interacted with them, and then began to use increasingly insulting rhetoric toward you.  It's not like you just came in and the Big Bad Atheists didn't give you a chance, and just verbally abused you without cause.

I've asked you repeatedly what is so motivating about the subject of testimony that you are willing to engage in multiple pages in multiple threads.  If you ask me why I'm interested in MY OP threads, I'll tell you all about it-- probably more than  you want to wade through.  So look-- at some point you need a point.  Testimony isn't a particularly difficult, deep or even interesting philosophical subject, so unless you have AN ACTUAL IDEA about it that is in any way original or interesting, then what are we doing here?  Just practicing our typing skills?

Ok... what is it, that merited such insults and rhetoric?

[LadyForCamus]

Mmmmm...beer. Anything particularly tasty and refreshing?

Yards pale ale.... after I ordered it, I was worried it wouldn't have much flavor, but it was pretty good.

---

So if I can make the same arguements against DNA evidence, that are made against witness testimony, the same conclusion would follow.  Does anyone disagree?

Lol, you can't though.  that's the whole point. To try and place those two on equal footing is simply equivocation. Crappy, transparent equivocation. Did you even read TGB's post about how many cases involving DNA evidence have been overturned by eyewitness testimony?

Spoiler alert: the answer is zero.

[RoadRunner79]

By showing that it is objective, rather than subjective.

By showing what is objective?  The testimony?  What are you talking about?

The gremlins you where asking about, and people saw.

How have I burned a bridge with you?  It's not like I'm accusing you of lying or dishonesty every other post.

You burn bridges when you use tactics and devices to direct a conversation, rather than genuinely engage with people.  Eventually, people get tired of giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Well the previous inquiry, and this discussion did start from the other mentioned thread about extraordinary claims. The topic of testimony was brought up, which was separate and really more basic from the extraordinary claims topic, so I started another thread.
People seemed to want to discuss it (or at least criticize me for not discussing there) and since no one took the invitation to start a thread for discussion I did.

So in the other thread, you wanted to discuss testimony. Now, you want to discuss extraordinary claims. How long do you want to keep going in circles?