Testimony is Evidence

[Astonished]

The only situation I can think of where testimony overrode evidence was on that episode of the Simpsons where Bart skipped school and witnessed what really happened in a case where the Mayor's nephew was accused of savagely beating a waiter. Oh, but wait, the waiter's clumsiness that caused his own injuries could not be established until he actually displayed a careless pratfall in the courtroom itself. So Bart's testimony would have been worthless without that. Just a 'your word against mine' situation. How fucking hard is this?

[Minimalist]

I think that it is going to depend on the particulars of the case, and what the each piece of evidence is presenting and how it connects with others.  Either may overturn the other depending on the circumstances.   And yes, any facts or information from DNA, for me, is going to come from testimony or be information passed to me from another.

All these threads...and for what?  Because you don't understand the difference between evidence and testimony.  Because -you- think "it's all testimony".

He's desperate to equate his fucking bible bullshit with DNA testing.

[Astonished]

All these threads...and for what?  Because you don't understand the difference between evidence and testimony.  Because -you- think "it's all testimony".

He's desperate to equate his fucking bible bullshit with DNA testing.

Never mind that it's not even in the realm of natural phenomena to be studied.

[LadyForCamus]

I think that it is going to depend on the particulars of the case, and what the each piece of evidence is presenting and how it connects with others.  Either may overturn the other depending on the circumstances.   And yes, any facts or information from DNA, for me, is going to come from testimony or be information passed to me from another.

All these threads...and for what?  Because you don't understand the difference between evidence and testimony.  Because -you- think "it's all testimony".

He couldn't even make it through the thread title without lying through his teeth, could he?

"Testimony is Evidence"?

Read: "All evidence is testimony."

Translation: "Conflating all other forms of evidence with testimony so that I can charge atheists with being irrational for accepting DNA evidence but not Bible claims.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that it is going to depend on the particulars of the case, and what the each piece of evidence is presenting and how it connects with others.  Either may overturn the other depending on the circumstances.   And yes, any facts or information from DNA, for me, is going to come from testimony or be information passed to me from another.

All these threads...and for what?  Because you don't understand the difference between evidence and testimony.  Because -you- think "it's all testimony".

No.... you could personally witness the evidence, rather than having someone else tell you about it.

---

His desire to blame us for his failed arguments is only hurting him, which will never motivate him to either stop or improve his performance. I'm simply pointing out the problem (with a little 'tough love') and laying blame where it actually belongs so as to inspire thoughts in a different direction than their consistent collision course that leads nowhere. Good enough?

Fair enough.

Frankly, I don't want negative rhetoric to give him an excuse to disregard the many clear points that have been directed at him.

I'm still waiting, after 25 pages or whatever, for an example of testimony that we can consider.

Fair enough, if you need something to picture, rather than just thinking through the issue: [RandalRauser.com]

A man is at a bar. A punk (Punk 1), with a Criminal Record for multiple assaults, is also at the bar. The man and Punk 1—who the man knows well but also with whom he has a problem—start exchanging words. They start pushing and shoving each other. They then take their dispute outside to a back-alley. Once there, the man and Punk 1 start what is called a “Consent Fight.” During this fight, Punk 1 punches the
man in the nose, which causes the punk’s knuckles to bruise and swell and which also causes the man’s blood to spatter across the punk’s shirt. In addition,
during this fight, the man scratches Punk 1 and gets the punk’s skin under his (the man’s) nails as well as tearing off some of the punk’s clothing in the process. Also, during the fight, Punk 1 steps in a small amount of mud and leaves his boot impression there at the scene.
Now, after a few moments, the fight ceases. But suddenly, from deeper in the alley-way, the brother of Punk 1—call him Punk 2—comes out of the darkness. The man spins around. He sees Punk 2, who he also knows. But before the man can react, Punk 2
hammers the man in the head with a crow bar which he (Punk 2) is holding with gloves on. The man goes down unconscious and in a coma. Punk 1 is in shock at what just happened. Punk 2, however, throws the crow-bar at Punk 1; Punk 1 grabs the crow-bar but then throws it away into the alley-way. However, before he did so, Punk 1 got his fingerprints on the crow-bar. Both punks then run from the scene in separate directions. However, it just happens that Punk 1 is caught on Surveillance Video half a block from the crime scene running away.
Police come to investigate the crime. They find the man unconscious and in a coma. They investigate the whole crime scene. They discover all the forensic evidence at the scene. Upon processing the evidence, the police determine that literally all the forensic evidence points to Punk 1 and no forensic evidence points to anyone else; from a forensic perspective, this is nearly a perfect case. As such, the police arrest Punk 1 and charge him with aggravated assault. While arresting Punk 1, police discover even more forensic evidence that incriminates Punk 1. But Punk 1, not wishing to rat out his brother (Punk 2), then says nothing to the police except that he did not do the crime.

Now, in this situation, watch how eye-witness testimony would be able to overpower the forensic evidence of even this forensically powerful case.

1) Eye-Witness Confession: If the brother, Punk 2, suddenly appeared at the police station and confessed to the crime, providing multiple details of what happened, how it happened, etc., then police would have a very difficult time in forming the reasonable and probable grounds to charge Punk 1 with the assault. This would especially be the case if Punk 1 had also provided an independent statement which matched the narrative provided by Punk 2. So here, a confession by Punk 2 would essentially make it impossible to convict Punk 1 of the crime even given all the forensic evidence that pointed to him.
2) Multiple Eye-Witnesses: If five people who, say, knew Punk 1 and Punk 2 (but were not friends with them, etc.), had suddenly stepped into the alley-way as Punk 2 had hit the man with the crow-bar, and if these five people provided statements to the police which clearly and distinctly identified the crow-bar attacker as Punk 2 rather than Punk 1, then the eye-witness testimony of these five people would override all the forensic evidence that had been found.
3) Expert Eye-Witness Testimony: Finally, say that there was only one eye-witness who observed that
Punk 2 had been the actual crow-bar attacker rather than Punk 1, but say that this one eye-witness was an undercover police officer of high reliability who was trained in observation and picking up all visual clues during an incident. Well, this one expert eye-witness’s testimony would be enough, in and of itself, to override all the forensic evidence that pointed to Punk 1. Or if the man woke from his coma and told the police that his main attacker was Punk 2 rather than Punk 1, then this eye-witness testimony would also be enough to override all the forensic evidence at the scene.

And there are examples, where forensic evidence provides a clearer picture, and can overturn witness testimony as well.  As I said before, I'm not pitting one against the other, or saying that one always wins over the other.  It depends on the details and context.

[The Grand Nudger]

All these threads...and for what?  Because you don't understand the difference between evidence and testimony.  Because -you- think "it's all testimony".

No.... you could personally witness the evidence, rather than having someone else tell you about it.

Shock and gasp.  You mean.....there's a difference between testimony and evidence after all?  Who would have guessed.

See how you cant maintain one side of this song and dance and the other simultaneously?

[bennyboy]

And there are examples, where forensic evidence provides a clearer picture, and can overturn witness testimony as well.  As I said before, I'm not pitting one against the other, or saying that one always wins over the other.  It depends on the details and context.

You're pretty clearly forgetting to include cases where one of the Punks has a competent lawyer.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment.

How many times do I have to say that that's not your call to make? Why can't you simply present your evidence and leave it to us to decide whether or not we find it convincing? Complaining about our integrity only serves to make us think you don't have any evidence, or at least have no confidence in what you may have.

As Whateverist pointed out, I misunderstood the poll's intent. For some people I have in mind, I say if the shoe fits wear it. Otherwise, I say you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, which goes both ways for sure. But between you and me, I'm fine with the idea that we can interpret things differently. I like those discussions. What I do not appreciate is when some people openly express a willingness to consider evidence, then instead starting off by simply explaining why the evidence presented is not sufficient, immediately go on to insult the presenter.

[Thumpalumpacus]

While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment.

I doubt they've been presented with evidence. See how this works?

You clearly prefer attacking the character of those who disagree with you, rather than considering why they regard your "evidence" as the crap that it is. Of course, the latter would entail you questioning your own beliefs, and I know that that can be a fearful thing. Many of us here have done exactly that and realized our beliefs need to be jettisoned.

You make a play of it, shilly-shallying over whether to be Catholic or Swedenborgian or whatever other little sect you regard as the truth du jour -- but you are unwilling and unable to question your central precept. Given that, your criticism and questioning the sincerity of others is not just tawdry, but hypocritical.

Show me your evidence, instead of poisoning the well.

[RoadRunner79]

No.... you could personally witness the evidence, rather than having someone else tell you about it.

Shock and gasp.  You mean.....there's a difference between testimony and evidence after all?  Who would have guessed.

See how you cant maintain one side of this song and dance and the other simultaneously?

I can see making a distinction, in how the facts or information was acquired (either through testimony or personal observation). And on one hand, the testimony is separate from the evidence, on the other hand, it is part of the facts or information which justify a belief or proposition to be true or valid (so we treat it as evidence).  

As an example, you can have two people see the same thing, and one can give a really crappy testimony, and the other gives a more accurate detailed representation of what occurred.  The evidence is what they had seen, however the conveyance of that information can be of a different quality, even though the observation was the same.

---

I don't know. Maybe I more than a bit jaded from my time on AF. While you  may sincerely hope to be convinced, I see far too many atheists claiming to be open to evidence but I doubt that they are expressing a genuine sentiment. Given the insults and ridicule L4C hurled my way when she first joined, I find it difficult to believe she would accept any evidence at all.

How many times do I have to say that that's not your call to make? Why can't you simply present your evidence and leave it to us to decide whether or not we find it convincing? Complaining about our integrity only serves to make us think you don't have any evidence, or at least have no confidence in what you may have.

I find this, more than a bit ironic!

---

Another example... out of curiosity.

A number of astronomers from various locations in the world observe a phenomenon which shows that the universe is eternal. Hugh Ross (Christian astronomer and apologist was one of the ones who observed this event, and begins to drastically change his views) This phenomena had a limited time window, which it could be observed, and we are unable to observe it at will.

Assuming that the testimony of this event is good (as well as the reasoning for the conclusion)i s there evidence for an eternal universe in this scenario?