Testimony is Evidence

[Minimalist]

We know his motive.  He wants to have his fairy tales validated.  To do so he is like a District Attorney who suborns perjury in order to get a conviction.

[RoadRunner79]

I've learned that repeating myself, doesn't change people ignoring the answer.... I've answered the question a few times now.... if he doesn't believe the answers, I'm not going to state it over and over. Besides appealing to motives doesn't change any reasoning or the conclusion. It fallacious to use as reasoning.

Questioning your motives has nothing to do with challenging the validity of your argument.  It's about having respect for your opponents by debating hobestly.

Ok... so what's your motive for entering the discussion?

[LadyForCamus]

Questioning your motives has nothing to do with challenging the validity of your argument.  It's about having respect for your opponents by debating hobestly.

Ok... so what's your motive for entering the discussion?

To tell you about what I think of eye-witness testimony, and why.  See how easy that was?  Are you done deflecting?  I'm waiting for that link where you answered Benny's question.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe its time people stopped questioning each others motives and just talk about the ideas themselves. None of us can read minds.

[Minimalist]

Are you serving cheese with that whine?

[Ravenshire]

So if I can make the same arguements against DNA evidence, that are made against witness testimony

Why don't you try? It'll be entertaining, at least.

[RoadRunner79]

I've learned that repeating myself, doesn't change people ignoring the answer.... I've answered the question a few times now.... if he doesn't believe the answers, I'm not going to state it over and over. Besides appealing to motives doesn't change any reasoning or the conclusion. It fallacious to use as reasoning.

No need to repeat.  Just link to the post where you answered Benny's question.

Nope... not filling up the thread with useless posts.  Especially when people are just going to say I'm lying anyway.

Cases that you know of (that's not really news, so you don't here if it) And what is the difference if testimony overturns DNA evidence in the first trial or the appeal?

Lol.  What does that have to do with anything?   At least Steve-O attempts to disguise his red herrings.  You're spiraling fast, RR.

You are the one who brought up the appeals, I am asking if there is a difference if the testimony overrides the DNA evidence in the appeal, or in the trial.

And if the reasons for the argument are the same, then I think that the that the conclusion follows.

Are they the same?  If so, how?  Remember equivocation?  Anything going on upstairs at all today,  RR?  Too many beers last night or something?  

is the way logic works.

You don't seem to know very much about how logic works if you can't understand a simple equivocation fallacy...

The same reasons apply, unless you want to support a category error.   If you are saying that Testimony is not evidence, because of X,Y,Z.  Then if X,Y,Z are found in DNA cases, it would also follow that DNA is not evidence for the same reasons.  (assuming that the argument is valid to begin with).  

If not

• there is something else, which you are basing your reasoning on (which needs to be stated and supported).
  
• there are special circumstances which makes something apply or not apply to one or the other (which you need to give your reasons for).
  
• You are just inconsistent in applying your logic.
  
• Or the argument was never really logical to begin with.
  

This is why the anecdotes of false convictions based on testimony are not evidence. They may be evidence of a single case, but a conclusion based on a small sample (especially if you cherry pick only cases that support your conclusion) is not good reasoning for a general proclamation on the entire category..   Now I do believe that both DNA and testimony are generally reliable and both are considered evidence.   So in these arguments, there must be something wrong in the premise  (Not evidence because of X,Y,Z) Now you could make the arguments or show the figures that testimony as a whole
is generally unreliable with a success rate lower than a certain threshold of which we could compare to other things as well.  However this is not being done.

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.

[Ravenshire]

No need to repeat.  Just link to the post where you answered Benny's question.

Nope... not filling up the thread with useless posts.  Especially when people are just going to say I'm lying anyway.

Lol.  What does that have to do with anything?   At least Steve-O attempts to disguise his red herrings.  You're spiraling fast, RR.

You are the one who brought up the appeals, I am asking if there is a difference if the testimony overrides the DNA evidence in the appeal, or in the trial.

Are they the same?  If so, how?  Remember equivocation?  Anything going on upstairs at all today,  RR?  Too many beers last night or something?  


You don't seem to know very much about how logic works if you can't understand a simple equivocation fallacy...

The same reasons apply, unless you want to support a category error.   If you are saying that Testimony is not evidence, because of X,Y,Z.  Then if X,Y,Z are found in DNA cases, it would also follow that DNA is not evidence for the same reasons.  (assuming that the argument is valid to begin with).  

If not

• there is something else, which you are basing your reasoning on (which needs to be stated and supported).
  
• there are special circumstances which makes something apply or not apply to one or the other (which you need to give your reasons for).
  
• You are just inconsistent in applying your logic.
  
• Or the argument was never really logical to begin with.
  

This is why the anecdotes of false convictions based on testimony are not evidence. They may be evidence of a single case, but a conclusion based on a small sample (especially if you cherry pick only cases that support your conclusion) is not good reasoning for a general proclamation on the entire category..   Now I do believe that both DNA and testimony are generally reliable and both are considered evidence.   So in these arguments, there must be something wrong in the premise  (Not evidence because of X,Y,Z) Now you could make the arguments or show the figures that testimony as a whole
is generally unreliable with a success rate lower than a certain threshold of which we could compare to other things as well.  However this is not being done.

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.

Your intellectual dishonesty has grown to disgusting proportions. You can't show that testimony is reliable, therefore everyone is cherry picking and providing anecdotes.

You want to show testimony is reliabe? Show us cases where the primary cause for conviction is physical evidence and testimony got it overturned. I dare you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You know what I see here?

A bunch of tap-dancing, some



Too much



... and not nearly enough

[The Grand Nudger]

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>?