Testimony is Evidence

[The Valkyrie]

I saw an invisible dragon in my garage today when I got home.

Is that where the little prick went?

[Amarok]

So were doing this again . Are you a masochist road ?

It's my fault...

*hangs head in shame*

I'm pretty sure you did not force this clown to make a thread about something we have been kicking his ass in twice now.

In other words don't blame yourself Roads just slow.

[bennyboy]

Testimony:  Dictionaries seem to be worse in the case of "testimony" [MW][OD] with giving examples, rather than what I feel is a true definition.  Many offer examples involving a court room, and someone being sworn in.  And in a circular fashion, the definition of "testimony", often then refers back to "evidence"  From previous studies, I have liked the definitions found in discussion of the epistemology of testimony such as here  and the definition that I am using, is that "testimony" is the transfer of knowledge from one person to another with the assertion that this information is true (this may be written or spoken).  Also, speaking specifically about witness testimony, which is testimony concerning something that the testifier either seen or otherwise experienced and then passes this information on to another.

At this point, at it's base, I think that witness testimony by it's definition is evidence.  It is a transfer of knowledge (information) from one person who experienced some thing, so that a another person (who did not witness it personally), to indicate that a belief of proposition is valid.  I do think that this it is the normative view, that testimony is evidence.  If you look at the definitions which I referenced, each often includes the other.  In addition at least in the U.S. this is the case, as I previously posted a lawyers Q&A site, as evidence for testimony here and here This includes a number of people who have made it their life's work to practice and study the law.  Some as I think any good lawyer should avoid answering, citing that they cannot make a determination without more details.  However the majority strongly state that testimony is evidence, and that it can be the only evidence to convict someone.  

While I think that any changes in regard to the nature of testimony as evidence are fairly recent, it is possible that I am basing my experience in the U.S. which would differ in another location and culture.  Also, I think that the question as I am posing it, is more if testimony should be evidence, rather than whether for your particular location it is currently considered so or not.

Evidence means literally "bringing something into view," not "things that will make others believe what you believe." One example of possibly useful testimony is expert testimony (though this often fails in court due to unscrupulous application of credentials). Let's say, for example, you have a coin and you want to know if it's a real Roman coin. We could observe it in broad daylight as much as we want, but we'd never know how to interpret that visual and chemical information. We will for sure want to consult an expert; and if there's a legal case involved, we will be forced to rely on expert testimonial. But even then, the expert will be expected to explain in unambiguous terms WHY he knows the coin is Roman, and there must be the sense that we could follow up: buy the same equipment he uses, read books about how certain metals are affected by time and environmental conditions, and so on. In other words, this kind of testimonial must be taken as a time-saving device, not an appeal to authority for its own sake.

Unbiased testimony about things which do not need interpretation is also reasonably useful. For example, if someone robbed me while wearing a ski mask, and I could report his tattoos to the police, then they'd be VERY likely indeed to pick the guy up and charge him, unless there was some reason to believe that we had social connections. The idea that some Canadian tourist just showed up in New York and started describing tattoos to the police just for something to do will be taken as much less likely than that a guy with the described tattoo mugged me.

But we all know that you want to establish testimony as evidence in general because there's no physical evidence for God which isn't better interpreted in non religious terms: either as lies, or as misunderstandings of the physical world, or whatever.

But the particular kind of testimonial you want to have accepted is that of anecdote-- if enough people claim to have had certain religious experiences, then that lessens the probability that the religious claims are false, or may even support the idea that the religious claims are true.

The problem is that pretty much 100% of this testimonial is either biased or requires interpretation of experiences, or involves unqualified people making attributions about things based on their own world views.

In short, I believe you are equivocating on the many kinds of testimonials that people might offer, so that our refusal to throw out the baby with the bath water will allow you a foot in the door to present an argument which does NOT in fact meet any sensible standard of evidence that non-Christians would (or should) accept. (Please understand that I do not mean this in an insulting way, like you are using a dirty trick. However, I think that is the practical function of this kind of argument-- you are doing the work of getting evidence that works for you to be accepted as credible or at least acceptable by others)

[LadyForCamus]

I actually don't have any major objections to anything presented in the OP as long as he's willing to acknowledge that context matters in all scenarios involving eyewitness testimony. I'm just not sure what his point is.

[Ravenshire]

You know what RR, testimony is evidence. It's just the least reliable form of evidence. Any jury that brings a guilty verdict on the strength of testimony alone should hang their heads in shame.

I'll have to see if I can find the video I posted in our first conversation about testimony.

[Minimalist]

His point is that some unnamed "witnesses" said that his godboy really did the shit he thinks he did.

Rather pointless exercise.

[bennyboy]

What I'd like for you to do, RR, is to actually GIVE some testimonial evidence, so we can discuss to what degree it is/isn't good enough to merit consideration.

[Amarok]

Testimony:  Dictionaries seem to be worse in the case of "testimony" [MW][OD] with giving examples, rather than what I feel is a true definition.  Many offer examples involving a court room, and someone being sworn in.  And in a circular fashion, the definition of "testimony", often then refers back to "evidence"  From previous studies, I have liked the definitions found in discussion of the epistemology of testimony such as here  and the definition that I am using, is that "testimony" is the transfer of knowledge from one person to another with the assertion that this information is true (this may be written or spoken).  Also, speaking specifically about witness testimony, which is testimony concerning something that the testifier either seen or otherwise experienced and then passes this information on to another.

At this point, at it's base, I think that witness testimony by it's definition is evidence.  It is a transfer of knowledge (information) from one person who experienced some thing, so that a another person (who did not witness it personally), to indicate that a belief of proposition is valid.  I do think that this it is the normative view, that testimony is evidence.  If you look at the definitions which I referenced, each often includes the other.  In addition at least in the U.S. this is the case, as I previously posted a lawyers Q&A site, as evidence for testimony here and here This includes a number of people who have made it their life's work to practice and study the law.  Some as I think any good lawyer should avoid answering, citing that they cannot make a determination without more details.  However the majority strongly state that testimony is evidence, and that it can be the only evidence to convict someone.  

While I think that any changes in regard to the nature of testimony as evidence are fairly recent, it is possible that I am basing my experience in the U.S. which would differ in another location and culture.  Also, I think that the question as I am posing it, is more if testimony should be evidence, rather than whether for your particular location it is currently considered so or not.

Evidence means literally "bringing something into view," not "things that will make others believe what you believe."  One example of possibly useful testimony is expert testimony (though this often fails in court due to unscrupulous application of credentials).  Let's say, for example, you have a coin and you want to know if it's a real Roman coin.  We could observe it in broad daylight as much as we want, but we'd never know how to interpret that visual and chemical information.  We will for sure want to consult an expert; and if there's a legal case involved, we will be forced to rely on expert testimonial.  But even then, the expert will be expected to explain in unambiguous terms WHY he knows the coin is Roman, and there must be the sense that we could follow up: buy the same equipment he uses, read books about how certain metals are affected by time and environmental conditions, and so on.  In other words, this kind of testimonial must be taken as a time-saving device, not an appeal to authority for its own sake.

Unbiased testimony about things which do not need interpretation is also reasonably useful.  For example, if someone robbed me while wearing a ski mask, and I could report his tattoos to the police, then they'd be VERY likely indeed to pick the guy up and charge him, unless there was some reason to believe that we had social connections.  The idea that some Canadian tourist just showed up in New York and started describing tattoos to the police just for something to do will be taken as much less likely than that a guy with the described tattoo mugged me.

But we all know that you want to establish testimony as evidence in general because there's no physical evidence for God which isn't better interpreted in non religious terms: either as lies, or as misunderstandings of the physical world, or whatever.

But the particular kind of testimonial you want to have accepted is that of anecdote-- if enough people claim to have had certain religious experiences, then that lessens the probability that the religious claims are false, or may even support the idea that the religious claims are true.

The problem is that pretty much 100% of this testimonial is either biased or requires interpretation of experiences, or involves unqualified people making attributions about things based on their own world views.

In short, I believe you are equivocating on the many kinds of testimonials that people might offer, so that our refusal to throw out the baby with the bath water will allow you a foot in the door to present an argument which does NOT in fact meet any sensible standard of evidence that non-Christians would (or should) accept.  (Please understand that I do not mean this in an insulting way, like you are using a dirty trick.  However, I think that is the practical function of this kind of argument-- you are doing the work of getting evidence that works for you to be accepted as credible or at least acceptable by others)

Now wait for the whining about how this is not an indirect attempt at Christian apologetics . And demand you make another thread .

[Minimalist]

Here's creatard Michael Behe being questioned and cross-examined at the Dover v Kitzmiller trial.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

He didn't do so well.

[Ravenshire]

Found it:





Mr. Fraser not only describes, in detail, what is wrong with witness testimony, he unwittingly demonstrates it. I found the video as linked from this article which points up some of the pros and cons, but seems to miss the biggest con, that witnesses may be mistaken or outright lying.

I'm going to quote myself from nine months ago, from the same thread where I initially posted the above link with it's video for further illustration of the point.

Human memory is too unreliable to trust, by itself, to come to a conclusion. Let me illustrate:
In 1998, I saw Jackie Joyner-Kersee win an Olympic medal at the summer games in New York City. That is, to the best of my knowledge, a statement of fact. It's what I remember. It never happened. New York City has never hosted the Olympic games. There were no summer games in 1998. Yet I clearly remember her winning an Olympic medal, in New York, in 1998.

It happens that it was the Goodwill games, which were indeed held in NYC in 1998. But, I only know that now because I just looked it up and had I been called upon before today to give testimony in a court of law whether Joyner-Kersee won an Olympic medal at the summer Olympic games in New York City, I would have sworn under oath that she did. It's likely that in the future I'll revert to that belief, forgetting once again that there ever were such a thing as the Goodwill games.

Moving beyond the fallibility of human memory, people can give horribly bad testimony even without faulty memories. Is the witness coerced? Is the witness even being honest? Is the witness a friend of the defendant or a foe? Is the witness being paid for their testimony? In short, does the witness have a motive to say what the prosecution (or the defense) wants them to say. These are just some of the things that should bar witness testimony from being the sole evidence to any conclusion.

I have to wonder if RR is simply immune to both testimonial evidence and physical evidence since his position hasn't budged an inch. Then again, I'm not emotionally invested in making testimony appear to be far better evidence than it actually is.

RR, let's get a clear answer for once. Why is testimony your pet hobby horse? You've been shown over and over again that it's unreliable, even from eye-witnesses, yet you cling to it like a drowning man clinging to a bit of flotsam.