Testimony is Evidence

[Amarok]

Yes. It has been proven time and time again that placebos work and can indeed be used as an effective treatment even if the patient knows he is taking a placebo! It is not the actual ingredients; but rather manner of their presentation that has an effect.

And what placebo, Chad, is it that you take? Do the "actual ingredients" matter?

I think you just admitted a fatal subjectivity. Have a nice evening.  

Lol been proven has it

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/03/2...-bullshit/

I think not

[Thumpalumpacus]

And what placebo, Chad, is it that you take? Do the "actual ingredients" matter?

I think you just admitted a fatal subjectivity. Have a nice evening.  

Lol  been proven has it

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/03/2...-bullshit/

I think not

My point was more about his psychological placebo, but the info is appreciated.

[Amarok]

Lol  been proven has it

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/03/2...-bullshit/

I think not

My point was more about his psychological placebo, but the info is appreciated.

I understand . And your welcome

You might wanna ask wooter if the ingredients don't matter . Then next time he gets ill would he take poison to cure himself ?

[RoadRunner79]

Now if you think my reasons are faulty or that I still don't know how logic works, please be specific, in what you feel I'm doing wrong.

LOL, not like it would be the first time....but here goes.

You;re doing it wrong in that you are searching for a semantic equivalence between testimony and evidence, not a qualitative equivalence.  Whatever truth you could extract from such a process would be trivial.  Further, your prime example of testimony as evidence is not an example of testimony as evidence..or, again, of any qualitative equivalence, but an issue of when people will -accept- it as evidence.  

Regardless of any trivial semantic equivalence you might draw, or how many people would accept testimony as evidence, the issue of a disparity between testimony and evidence still exists.  Cheifly, in that testimony not only does not make it's contents evident, it cannot.  The simplest and most uncontroversial claim, referred to as testimony, does not advance or indicate the accuracy of it;s contents in the least.  To do that, we (and this means you...as well) must refer to other articles external to the claim, external to the testimony..and these things are the evidence upon which the simple value of the testimony -as- testimony are assessed by.  This is what makes it -evident- that a persons testimony is or is not accurate.  

It should be very clear, in all of this, that when discussing evidence and testimony...one of these things is not like the other.

Continuing...you could, if you wanted to, choose to -accept- testimony as evidence but you will run into a whole host of problems that simply do not exist with evidence.  DNA does not have a faulty memory.  It does not lie.  It is not subject o the whole host of bias -inherent- in even the most reliable human witness. The notion that testimony has x y ans z and so is not evidence and dna has x y and z and so is not evidence, I'mm willing to bet actual money, will rely on the same sort of sloppy thought expressed in the primary assertion that testimony is evidence.  Trivial equivalences, semantics, and the accidental, incidental, or intentional ignorance of irreconcilable and irrefutable qualitative differences.

Thoughts>?

It is a matter of semantics.  And as I shown, testimony fits the definition of evidence (which I haven't seen anyone reason against that); this would place it within the description of evidence.  I believe that what you are talking about in qualitative evidence is about numbers or how reliable it is. And this is a valid point.  Some may point to astrology as evidence for what their day would be like, but I don't think that either of us would dispute a relatively low value in that method.  

I have seen anything where I could make even a rough estimate for testimony as a whole, for reliability. No studies, and even criminal case evaluations I have looked at, do not provide the necessary information.   I don't think that my interlocutors have this information either (otherwise we would be discussing methods and/or thresholds right now).  However I do find that a large portion of my beliefs are based on the testimony of others.  From facts about science from others, to the news, history, even at work, I depend on it.  If I am not depending on information from another, then I am relying on personal observations and memory to indicate a belief or proposition to be true.  What do I see now, what did I see a little bit ago, and how does that fit within past experiences.  Lastly, reason plays a role in forming valid beliefs; which is not part of the topic, but hardly infallible itsel (which I assume is not disputed)f. Now often these three methods work together in various mixes and arrangements.  However I am not aware of any other method of gaining information and facts to indicate that a belief or proposition is valid (unless perhaps you want to include feelings, which I don't think is a particularly strong method.  Do you have any method to add to this?  (People still seem to be avoiding this point)  

I do agree, that DNA evidence, does not have a bias, it does not lie (at least on it's own) and does not have memory at all (let a lone a faulty one).  It has it's own liabilities which testimony doesn't share.  Why do you think these particular liabilities single out testimony as not being evidence?  There is a problem with any contamination of evidence [psychologicalscience.org], and in the real world, this is difficult to avoid completely all the time.  All we can do is mitigate the particular weaknesses of the evidence we have to form a reasonable conclusion or belief (which may be that the evidence in whatever form isn't sufficient to believe the proposition is true).  

And then there is the difficulty, that if I accept that testimony isn't evidence, based on the information you all are giving, then I have no evidence in which to support that belief (because all the testimony from others is no longer useful in indicating the belief is true; they could be lying, or subject to the whole host of bias inherent to the most reliable human witness).  

I'm not taking any type of absolute position here.  That testimony shouldn't be weighed and evaluated.  That is shouldn't be tested for it's value (according to what it offers).  Nor that it shouldn't be compared with other available evidence.  Sometimes testimony may be stronger, and other times, it may be weaker.  Which is why I don't think that anecdotes of when testimony is weak prove a case against what I am saying.  And individual anecdotes do not make a general case agaisnt the category of testimony (and isn't nearly as strong as proposed, when witness mis-identification is removed)  So again, I ask.... if anyone is arguing that you cannot trust information from others, and you cannot trust what you witness; what are you basing your beliefs on (and is it more reliable).

[Amarok]

And is wooter saying pain is not about the nervous system . And has no material effects .

[The Grand Nudger]

It is a matter of semantics.

Then that;s to bad, and no more would need to be said.  

 And as I shown, testimony fits the definition of evidence (which I haven't seen anyone reason against that); this would place it within the description of evidence.  I believe that what you are talking about in qualitative evidence is about numbers or how reliable it is. And this is a valid point.  Some may point to astrology as evidence for what their day would be like, but I don't think that either of us would dispute a relatively low value in that method.  

No, it doesn't.  Even as a semantic flourish, it's too stretched to fly under the radar.  The difference between evidence and testimony just jumps out at anyon who's ever, you know, heard someones testimony and wondered whether or not it were true...and how to find out.

I have seen anything where I could make even a rough estimate for testimony as a whole, for reliability. No studies, and even criminal case evaluations I have looked at, do not provide the necessary information.   I don't think that my interlocutors have this information either (otherwise we would be discussing methods and/or thresholds right now).  However I do find that a large portion of my beliefs are based on the testimony of others.  From facts about science from others, to the news, history, even at work, I depend on it.  If I am not depending on information from another, then I am relying on personal observations and memory to indicate a belief or proposition to be true.  What do I see now, what did I see a little bit ago, and how does that fit within past experiences.  Lastly, reason plays a role in forming valid beliefs; which is not part of the topic, but hardly infallible itsel (which I assume is not disputed)f. Now often these three methods work together in various mixes and arrangements.  However I am not aware of any other method of gaining information and facts to indicate that a belief or proposition is valid (unless perhaps you want to include feelings, which I don't think is a particularly strong method.  Do you have any method to add to this?  (People still seem to be avoiding this point)  

If a large portion of your beliefs are founded on testimony than a large portion of your beliefs are, meaningfully, unfounded.  

I do agree, that DNA evidence, does not have a bias, it does not lie (at least on it's own) and does not have memory at all (let a lone a faulty one).  It has it's own liabilities which testimony doesn't share.  Why do you think these particular liabilities single out testimony as not being evidence?  There is a problem with any contamination of evidence [psychologicalscience.org], and in the real world, this is difficult to avoid completely all the time.  All we can do is mitigate the particular weaknesses of the evidence we have to form a reasonable conclusion or belief (which may be that the evidence in whatever form isn't sufficient to believe the proposition is true).  

I don't think that those things single testimony out as not being evidence, that's your looneytunes fishing trip for something to bicker with.  I only expressed some the troubles with even -accepting- testimony as evidence, regardless of whether or not it is.  You delivered exactly what I expected in response.

And then there is the difficulty, that if I accept that testimony isn't evidence, based on the information you all are giving, then I have no evidence in which to support that belief (because all the testimony from others is no longer useful in indicating the belief is true; they could be lying, or subject to the whole host of bias inherent to the most reliable human witness).  

Why would that be a problem for you..basing most of your beliefs on testimony?  You;d suddenly have an insurmountable need for ecvidence>  Doubtful.  But hey, it;s not like you couldn't go get it, if you wanted it.  Go, let wonder lead you to knowledge.....particularly if it aborts the next version of this thread before it comes to term.

I'm not taking any type of absolute position here.  That testimony shouldn't be weighed and evaluated.  That is shouldn't be tested for it's value (according to what it offers).  Nor that it shouldn't be compared with other available evidence.  Sometimes testimony may be stronger, and other times, it may be weaker.  Which is why I don't think that anecdotes of when testimony is weak prove a case against what I am saying.  And individual anecdotes do not make a general case agaisnt the category of testimony (and isn't nearly as strong as proposed, when witness mis-identification is removed)  So again, I ask.... if anyone is arguing that you cannot trust information from others, and you cannot trust what you witness; what are you basing your beliefs on (and is it more reliable).

I;m not bickering with you over whether or not you can trust others or your own eyes, or the information they give you.  Your trust, like their testimony..simply isn't evidence.  Focus. You;re obviously capable of swallowing a whole load of testimony, but their having given it and your having taken it does not change what it is, or what it is not.

[Amarok]

More information on the fraudulent Placebo without deception "narrative "

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-harn...-anything/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-are-you-there/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/1...deception/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/1...lacebo-ef/ 

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/1...ggeration/

Lies and exaggerations

[The Grand Nudger]

How to best deal with a headache, draino or aspirin, draino or aspirin...? I've heard that they both put a quick end to headaches.  

The world may never know.

[Amarok]

How to best deal with a headache, draino or aspirin, draino or aspirin...?  I've heard that they both put a quick end to headaches.  

The world may never know.

Should it really surprise us. Wooter is as ignorant of medicine as he is of everything else.

[LadyForCamus]

How many years did it take you to perfect this skill of weaving convoluted mazes of red herrings?  Do people generally fall for it?

This  is exactly why threads involving you and RR end up being a hundred pages long.  The content is 90% endless text walls of distractions, and 10% actual discussion.  Wouldn't it be easier to just talk to people?

I am not offering, nor do I need to offer a formal, logical argument to reach the conclusion that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  Do you know why?  Because I have evidence which demonstrates it's truth.  Therefore, your charge of a logical fallacy is, in and of itself fallacious; an elaborate red herring constructed for the purpose of obfuscating and distracting from my very simple, and direct point.

"Eyewitness testimony is unreliable" is a statement of fact.  If you disagree, then you're simply wrong.  You see, I have actual evidence (a plethora, in fact) to back up this statement, whereas you have no evidence to back up your assertion that eyewitness testimony is reliable, nor your faulty conclusion based off of this un-evidenced  assertion, that witness testimony alone is reasonably sufficient for claims of the supernatural.

The person here with the fallacious argument is you, Steve.  Now.  Try again, because you're 0 for 2 on:

1.  Accurately representing my position, which I will restate for you here:


 A. Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence. (Edited so that poopy-pants can't mischaracterize my point for a third time)

  B. Therefore, I and any other rational person, in the interest of reason and truth, should wait for corroborating evidence before believing any claim beyond the most mundane, where being wrong in that belief carries little to no serious consequences.  And, especially before believing claims of the "supernatural" variety, which carry far-reaching and deep-seeded consequences such as the defining of one's world views, and the ways in which we value our lives, and the lives of others.


2.  Addressing it.

I will spell it out more fully:

Take your claim "Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence". That is simply not true. We rely on it to some degree millions of times a minute all over the world: In court cases of all types (criminal, civil, family), the running of governments of all levels, the running of corporations, the reporting of news, writing of articles/books, etc. These are all defeaters to your premise A. 

Perhaps you will backpedal and say "some witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence". I would agree with this premise. But there are ramifications of this backpedaling: The converse is also true: some witness testimony is reliable as a form of evidence. If that is true, your conclusion is no longer a conclusion that follows from the premises--but a statement of opinion. Now you have:

    1. Some witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable as a form of evidence
    2. Some witness testimony is demonstrably reliable as a form of evidence
    3. Therefore the evidence is reliable on a case by case basis. 

Wait! that looks familiar.

For the third time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

     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

Since you've omitted a critical piece of my position twice now in order to bolster your own, I will phrase my response such that you cannot ignore it again.  

Just because we are forced to trust (or 'rely on', if it pleases you) for practicality purposes, the most mundane and inconsequential testimony in order to be functional living beings, the fact that we do so does not change the inherently unreliable nature of witness testimony as a form evidence.

It just means that in order to function from day to day, we must make choices about about which types of claims are worth accepting solely on an extremely fallible form of evidence, and which ones aren't.  We do this by evaluating the risk; the consequences of the testimony being wrong.  More serious claims beyond the mundane, (religious ones, for example), carry far-reaching consequences that effect our world views, and the ways in which we value our lives, and the lives of others.

Example 1. My husband testifies to me that he fed our son Macaroni and cheese for lunch.  Maybe he did. Or maybe, due to sleep deprivation, he forgot that he actually fed him French toast, and was remembering mac and cheese from the day before.  What do I do?  Dig further?  Pull the garbage can apart in search of the empty mac and cheese container?  Interrogate my three year old?  Smell his breath?  Assess the color and consistency of the food stains on his shirt?  Of course not.  I'm going to go ahead and accept his testimony alone, despite the fact that I know it could be wrong. Why?  Because, there are literally ZERO negative consequences to my son having French toast instead of mac and cheese.  Any further investigation for corroborating evidence is simply not worth the trouble.

Example 2. On the other hand, if my husband tells me god came to him in a dream and said our son has been chosen to be an angel, so we must toss him into the Grand Canyon, well...lol.  Needless to say, I'm not going to accept on his testimony alone, that he's having conversations with God about our son's divine future.

In both examples, my husband's testimony could be erroneous.  This is why testimony, as a form of evidence, sucks.  It's been demonstrated to suck over and over. It's is just a matter of which claims we're willing to risk being wrong about, and what the implications of being wrong about them are.