Testimony is Evidence

[Neo-Scholastic]

You still haven't commented on my testimonial that Jesus likes to....

Why do you have to be like that? I know that some people say "respect the believer but not the belief". I don't see how lude remarks like this are anything but directed towards the believers themselves.

[LadyForCamus]

[hide]

You forgot to mention he's shitting all over other evidence, so he's clearly bullshitting for that reason too. And he's constantly avoiding the fact that I've pointed out myriad legitimate reasons why testimony should be either disregarded as evidence or the worst sort of evidence and he seems to conveniently ignore it or dismiss it every time. Trying to prove an assertion with an assertion makes no sense. Testimony that has evidence to back it up is basically nothing more than another claim that needs to be proven. If it helps to bolster another claim, it's the evidence doing that, not the complementary claim.

Can you sum up your "myriad of legitimate reasons why testimony should be either disregarded as evidence or the worst sort of evidence "?  So I can properly address them.

---

RR: "yeah well, all you provided as evidence for your claim that witness testimony is unreliable is sources from experts!"


The irony of RR rejecting the expert testimony regarding facts about testimony is just...


And his reasoning is...he didn't like the titles, lol.

I don't reject the studies or the expert testimony.  And to my knowledge, very few of them are putting forth the argument here and calling to remove testimony all together as evidence.  I reject the conclusion proposed by many here, about the testimony. 

And no... I don't think that titles of the article override the content and substance of the article.  I don't think that you should base your conclusion on the title.   Or are you also against DNA evidence, because of articles with similar titles.

I was merely repeating what you, yourself, stated.

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...

Why would you bring it up if you didn't take some kind of issue with it?

[bennyboy]

You still haven't commented on my testimonial that Jesus likes to....

Why do you have to be like that? I know that some people say "respect the believer but not the belief". I don't see how lude remarks like this are anything but directed towards the believers themselves.

If a cockroach has a hard enough shell, only a sledge hammer seems likely to get through it with sufficient impact.

We are talking about the value of testimony, and I've given some testimony.  Now, let RR (or you) explain why my testimony is not acceptable evidence for Jesus' homosexuality.  Is that you think I'm making up shit?  Is it that my anecdote seems massively likely to be untrue?

Oh yeah, wait.  Maybe I DO have a point, and I'm not being a dick for no reason.  I'm being a dick because it's the most concise way to make obvious what should already BE obvious.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You still haven't commented on my testimonial that Jesus likes to....

Why do you have to be like that? I know that some people say "respect the believer but not the belief". I don't see how lude remarks like this are anything but directed towards the believers themselves.

I don't respect anyone who refuses to think for themselves.

[SteveII]

Most of the time you don't get physical evidence--especially for events. So, the best evidence possible is often going to be testimonial evidence.

Being the only evidence doesn't keep it from being shitty, hearsay evidence. Shitty evidence may be good enough for you, but I have higher standards.

Aside from supernatural claims, what kind of event do you think leaves no physical evidence?

The billions of human actions, interactions, and conversations that do not have a lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time...that happen every minute of the day.

[Anomalocaris]

Being the only evidence doesn't keep it from being shitty, hearsay evidence. Shitty evidence may be good enough for you, but I have higher standards.

Aside from supernatural claims, what kind of event do you think leaves no physical evidence?

The billions of human actions, interactions, and conversations that do not have a lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time...that happen every minute of the day.

Actually, no.  Physics says nothing above quantum level that could actually happen could ever happen in such a way that in principle it leaves no physical evidence.   It is called non-destruction of information.   That it might be very expensive and difficult to recover the evidence is one thing, to say there is in principle no evidence is another, and false.  No less a personage than Steve Hawking gambled that there could be one exception to the rule of non-destruction of information.  He paid up when he lost.   Even if God is a black hole he could not suck up the information about any of his antics.

If the thing claimed to have happened is of little consequence, then effort to obtain evidence for it must be gaged by how important is it to determine accurately whether it happened.   Hence if the evidence for it is more costly to obtain than it's worth, then to hell with it.   99.99% of human actions, interactions and conversation falls into that category.

If the thing claimed to have happened is also claimed to have profound consequence - and in the case of apparently infantile Christian claims they are always attended by extravagant boasts of the supreme and eternal implied consequence - then it would be worth the Supreme time and Supreme effort to recover the physical evidence to prove it happened, so as to Prove the claims of extravagant consequence need be considered; or whether it in fact never happened, but gullible or criminal minds were banking on the difficulty of proving it happened to create the make belief that it did happen, in order to suit their own ends.

Why are you so afraid of fingers being pointed at the latter possibility, moron?

[Astonished]

Do you accept that there are degrees of reliability of evidence?

I asked him that repeatedly in his other bullshit thread and he vehemently declined to give an answer.

[Ravenshire]

Being the only evidence doesn't keep it from being shitty, hearsay evidence. Shitty evidence may be good enough for you, but I have higher standards.

Aside from supernatural claims, what kind of event do you think leaves no physical evidence?

The billions of human actions, interactions, and conversations that do not have a lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time...that happen every minute of the day.

If they don't have a lasting or meaningful effect, why in the fuck would anyone care about testimony for them? Further, why would anyone even question them? Good old christer dodge. As us ignoring the first half of my post. Are your standards of evidence so incredibly low that even you care not to defend them?

---

Yes, I am ignoring it.   For one, it's a straw man.  Second, it's just being disrespectful, and not making an argument or giving reason for your position.

No, he's not straw-manning you. He's using satire to make a point.

[Astonished]

The billions of human actions, interactions, and conversations that do not have a lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time...that happen every minute of the day.

If they don't have a lasting or meaningful effect, why in the fuck would anyone care about testimony for them? Further, why would anyone even question them? Good old christer dodge. As us ignoring the first half of my post. Are your standards of evidence so incredibly low that even you care not to defend them?

---

Yes, I am ignoring it.   For one, it's a straw man.  Second, it's just being disrespectful, and not making an argument or giving reason for your position.

No, he's not straw-manning you. He's using satire to make a point.

He knows he can't defend it. That's why he's not bothering.

[Mister Agenda]

*sighs heavily*  Yes, RR, testimony is indeed evidence.

Very weak evidence.

Testimony has to be framed in terms of possibility and plausibility.  If I say I went out for lunch with my friend John, that's both possible and plausible.  If I say that John and I flew to Madrid for lunch, that's possible but implausible.  If I say we got picked up by Dr. Who in the TARDIS, went to 11th century Madrid for lunch, and my guardian dragon Glori came along with us, I'd expect you to laugh at me.

And there's consequences to consider. If your lunch with John is his alibi for a murder, we should thoroughly investigate your claim that John was having lunch with you at that time. Suddenly the 'why would you lie about that and if you are lying about it, so what?' part of the Bayesian calculation has changed.