Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

You know, I've grown tired of arguing with our resident brick wall. It's become painfully obvious that his emotional investment in the worth of testimony has overridden common sense. Even the courts are starting to instruct juries in the (un)reliability of testimony evidence, yet RR staunchly defends it as being at least as worthy as physical evidence, citing that that physical evidence can be corrupted, misleading, etc... while ignoring the arguments that physical evidence can be retested with little if any degradation yet testimony only gets less reliable the further you get from the actual events.p

We've had an expert in testimony explain the problems, supported by physical evidence and unwittingly demonstrating exactly what he was explaining. RR dismissed the physical evidence and, ironically, questioned the reliability of the testimony. My own case of conflating the 1998 Goodwill Games with Olympic games, similarly dismissed.

RR, it's obvious you want testimony to be as reliable (or more) as physical evidence. The problem, for you, is that the evidence doesn't bear your wishes out. I can only be left with the belief that your emotional investment in testimony springs from your belief in the unsupported, second-hand (at best) testimonies that inform your faith.

It's actually kinda funny that someone who claims to be skeptical can be so credulous of ancient, unsupported claims yet so disbelieving of the evidence laid out under his nose.

---

And now, because I don't agree, you go to emotional investment and a lack of common sense?  And yes, the courts are starting to instruct jury's on issues within testimony.   Primarily, that of identifying a stranger, and the issues of memory not being a perfect recording device, that can call up any detail.  And they are also still hearing testimony as evidence, and testimony alone is enough to convict.

Now it keeps being brought up that I am dismissing o the evidence.  What is this evidence that everyone thinks that I am ignoring (I have agreed to a great deal)?  What I don't think that you have done, is show that testimony is so unreliable as to either not be evidence at all, or be so weak be the often claimed lowest type of evidence, barely able to be called that.

Here is my summary of the case you have made so far. 

• Pointed to websites or experts which state or have the title Witness testimony is unreliable - Normally if you read these sites or studies though, you find that it is certain aspects of witness testimony that is unreliable.  Most when you read them (and given some thought), are really dealing with two aspects of testimony though.  That of identifying a stranger, and memory issues. 
  
• Pointed to people that have been wrongly convicted, because of witness testimony.
  

The following, I am unsure if it was you or others, but the arguments have been made also, that people can lie (true of any testimony including that of your experts).  And that human perception memory, and recollection is so flawed to be useful as information regarding a belief.  I asked the question before, and I don't believe that any one answered,  but if you cannot trust others, and you cannot trust your own perception or memory, then what are you basing your beliefs on.

In the other thread, when I pointed out that DNA evidence can be unreliable (and subjective) it was rightly pointed out, that this is one aspect of DNA; that of when there isn't a clean sample.  In fact the above bulleted arguments can both be made of DNA evidence.  If you google DNA evidence unreliable, you will find a number of articles that discuss this (many are focusing on the rise of technology and touch DNA), and you can also find that people have been falsely convicted because of an over reliance on DNA evidence.  Do your same conclusions follow with DNA evidence?

Here is but one example from a professor on Pshycology & Law  Here

As part of the “Psychology & Law” class that I teach, I set out to illustrate the point that contaminated forensic evidence of any kind (not just contaminated eyewitness evidence) can lead to a wrongful conviction

The following observation was noted in a demonstration where DNA evidence mistakenly pointed to a person.

The prosecution’s theory seems unaccountably accepting of the idea that a 4-year-old with no apparent connection to Leiterman was present and also bleeding when Mixer was murdered

I'm not pitting physical evidence agaisnt witness testimony. I believe that in any individual case, that either the physical evidence or witness testimony may be more useful in giving you a picture of what occurred. In one case, physical evidence may outweigh the testimony, and in another, testimony may be greater than the picture the physical evidence paints. It all depends on the quality of the evidence.

As I stated before, I think that you need to show your reasons, why witness testimony and any flaws or shortcoming make testimony as a whole either not evidence or the least form of evidence (or whatever case you are trying to make). Cherry picking examples does not make a case, and even the site you referenced earlier (for the video) stated that testimony is generally reliable.

---

I think that the sufficiency of any evidence depends on how well it demonstrates the proposition or belief to be valid.

Do you? Even if the witness is mistaken? Or lying? Or falsely remembering? Because it demonstrates the proposition well, it's valid?

I know some people who can convincingly "demonstrate the proposition" that you should buy their bridge. You want to buy?

No if they are mistaken or lying, then it doesn't demonstrate the proposition well.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not pitting physical evidence agaisnt witness testimony.  I believe that in any individual case, that either the physical evidence or witness testimony may be more useful in giving you a picture of what occurred.  In one case, physical evidence may outweigh the testimony, and in another, testimony may be greater than the picture the physical evidence paints.  It all depends on the quality of the evidence.

Wait, lol...what?  Like, when somebody claims that you killed them...but then they got better? Jesus christ.......

[Redbeard The Pink]

I have a fundamental problem with this entire discussion.

The "testimony" at the bottom of this poorly laid logic trap is some kind of sacred text, is it not? Am I off base in assuming it's the bible?

Because if not, then why are we talking about testimony? The bible is not testimony. The bible is fiiiiiiiictiooooon. Those things did not happen. I don't think a fucking one of those characters is any more real than Gandalf or Hercules or King Arthur. The things in that book are demonstrably false in every testable sense, it's filled with barbaric and contradictory shit, and the god it depicts is a blood-mongering lunatic who's obsessed with human and animal sacrifice.

Now if you're not arguing for the veracity of the bible and are instead pandering for the general idea of supernatural nonsense being accepted on the hearsay of the people who say it happened, then go on and present your "testimony" so we can attempt to decide if it's acceptable evidence for whatever your claim is. Did you see a ghost or something?

(Forgive me for not reading this thread back to front; I'm watching Star Trek.)

[RoadRunner79]

You didn't give much to go on. You didn't say what you saw, and that seems to contradict your claim that it is invisible. I wouldn't consider that very good testimony.

Ah, so testimony is not always good evidence then. Thanks.

As was stated in the OP... I agree.
I don't know that I would state that anything is always good evidence though. Depends on the details and on other evidence.

---

I have a fundamental problem with this entire discussion.

The "testimony" at the bottom of this poorly laid logic trap is some kind of sacred text, is it not? Am I off base in assuming it's the bible?

(Forgive me for not reading this thread back to front; I'm watching Star Trek.)

I'm just taking about testimony in general.

[The Grand Nudger]

 Did you see a ghost or something?

(Forgive me for not reading this thread back to front; I'm watching Star Trek.)

Nah, he thinks somebody else saw one.  To be blunt, the point of this thread (like every thread before it....what an asshole) has nothing to do with "testimony", but fiction based hearsay and smoothing ones own intellect for being such a credulous mark.

[RoadRunner79]

Just a note, but repeating your claim over and over again, chest thumping, and name calling, are not the makings of an intelligent or reasoned belief. However I note; they do tend to show up quite a bit as atheist arguments.

[The Grand Nudger]

-said the man on his third thread, and who knows how many posts. You know..... the only thing that all the failures in your life have in common, is you. This is obviously one of those things you could learn from...but I;m willing to bet we'll revisit this again, in a fourth thread..after many hundreds of comments.

[bennyboy]

I'm just taking about testimony in general.

No, I don't think you are. We've talked plenty about testimony, and about the degrees to and cases in which it is/isn't useful. If you are trying to pretend after maybe a hundred pages of text in several threads that you don't have a particular motivation, then I'm gonna just state straight up that I believe you are lying. I'm not just saying that to be mean, but I'd say there's now a substantial body of evidence supporting this claim: your persistence and vehemence on the issue far outweigh what would be expected from someone with an academic interest in this part of jurisprudence.

If you had a general interest in evidence or in law, you would have made a dozen other threads about ethics, philosophical issues with determinism and free will and punishment, about what science is and how it should be done, and so on.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ah, so testimony is not always good evidence then. Thanks.

As was stated in the OP... I agree.  

Then you'll understand why nonbelievers don't accept testimony they cannot verify. Testimony needs backup -- even with you, clearly.

[Amarok]

I'm just taking about testimony in general.

I don't think you know what your talking about period