Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I do think that much of this  is mostly rhetoric, so that they can avoid evidence that is unpalatable to them without thinking.  Hence the constant shifting.  However try dismissing what they want to present as just testimony and no evidence, and see how quickly the name calling starts again.

Both appeal to motivation and poisoning the well are fallacious.

If I am using them as an argument, which I am not. Also just having a little fun, considering previous posts.

[The Grand Nudger]

If this thread has demonstrated anything, it's that you don't quite comprehend the arguments you -are- making.

[Amarok]

That it would be hypocritical? If it were true, yes. Link, please. Just one will do, if it illustrates your point.

We've been attacking his character but also providing evidence. I guess because we've done one, that negates the other (in his mind.) Boy, the world works very differently to someone with that kind of mental defect.

No we only pointed out what flaws he himself exposed .

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry about that.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-o...24282.html
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-i...17488.html

So you've got some quotes from lawyers online regarding the pertinacity of testimony as evidence. And as I've said myself, sometimes testimony can be evidence.

Yes, and it is context of those who say that testimony is not evidence, or testimony is so weak as to require physical evidence to go with it. This shows that this is untrue in current U.S. Judicial proceedings.

Now reread my first post in this thread: when I got home from work today, I saw an invisible dragon in my garage. You clearly had a problem with it, and even raised a cogent objection ... but you just never did make the last mile, which is to understand that some testimony under some circumstances is evidential, most testimony will need to be backed up by physical evidence, and some testimony is utter shit.

Yes, and as I have said from the beginning, testimony being evidence, doesn't mean that we do not examine it, test it, and question it at all. I agree, that some testimony can be rubbish, either because of it's content (or lack thereof), or because you have reasons to discount it.

Carrying the point forward a bit further, if testimony needs support from physical or forensic evidence, what does that say about its place in evidentiary proceedings? TGB rightly notes that while convictions based on testimony have been thrown out based on DNA exonerations (oh dear, physical evidence!), none based on physical evidence have been thrown out based on testimony.

That should tell you something about the hierarchy of evidence.

And this is a point, that I would like to hear the reasoning behind. I don't think that you have the information that testimony has never overturned a conviction based on physical evidence. I think that this is an assumption on your part.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You realize that reason refers explicitly to a set of "hard and fast" rules that people emphatically -do not- get to decide for themselves, right?

Strange opinion coming from a nominalist, jus'sayin'

[RoadRunner79]

Neither of those links works for me; they deliver "page not found" messages.

Ironic, considering the topic of this thread.

They quote lawyers answering the question of whether or not testimony alone is enough to get a conviction. Under our current system, it is, for now. What our resident brick walls won't understand, is that's changing. Being that our system is based upon case law and precedent, yes, testimony can get you tossed in the jug for decades and even cost you your life. The vastly more important question that is being asked in this thread, and in our judicial system is "Should it?" After all, our constitution sets the requisite evidence for a guilty conviction for treason at two reliable witnesses. On the other hand, the number of cases where testimony is the primary motivator for a guilty verdict later being overturned by physical evidence keeps growing and growing. Judges are beginning to instruct juries on the failings of testimony as evidence. Jurors are asking why there is no/so little physical evidence. Even if RR is right and the last is a by-product of television shows, good! Precedent and common law do not take into account shifts in our ability to find and use physical evidence. Fortunately, precedent can change and while it is a slow process, it's doing so now.

I have stated repeatedly (though the brick walls keep conveniently "forgetting") that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence. They just don't like the fact that I don't believe it's sufficient on it's own.

I hope I live to see the day when testimony, by itself, cannot lead to a conviction. In an age where blood spatter from a blunt trauma head wound can be used to determine if the perpetrator is left- or right-handed, I believe we're already there and just waiting for the courts to catch up.

I agree, that the more important question is should it? (and stated so in the OP). If the question is just is it? At least concerning the U.S. that is an easy debate to win; although some seem to not want to admit these facts. I do agree, that in a matter of some consequence, that a single point of evidence is most often not going to be enough for me to change my mind. I'm going to look for other evidence whether it be corroborating physical evidence or other independent testimony. The same also applies with most forensic evidence. DNA only gives you only a little bit of information from which to infer a conclusion, and I would be very hesitant to come to a conclusion based on that alone in most every case.

I can respect, that we are going to have a difference of opinion to some extent with how to handle the issues with testimony. Personally, I think that given your reasons you are throwing out the bathwater with the baby to some extent. But I am more concerned with those with the more extreme positions or inconsistent reasoning. They are working towards reforms within the judicial system. And I agree with those that I have seen. However I have not seen any proposals similar to the claims I am seeing here. They mostly deal with the problems with witness identification of a stranger (and perhaps a reminder that even when certain, the witness may be mistaken on some details). Which is the issues, that I see in the studies. Of a secondary concern of mine, is that people put too much on forensic science, ignoring or de-rating testimony and ignoring possible flaws or mistakes within the forensic evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL..........? 

"Strange opinion coming from a Charlie".



So, I'm unclear from that response, do you understand the basic contradiction presented by your statement, or not?

[SteveII]

In case I am one of the brick walls, I want to point out that your first sentence "that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence" is simply true by definition. Your second sentence is just a matter of opinion since 1) you do not have a logical defeater for and 2) there are good reasons for someone to hold the opposing view that testimony can be sufficient on it's own. Notice I did not say the opposing view is that testimony is sufficient--because no one really holds that position.

Well, I've supplied evidence for my stance. Perhaps you could do the same? Not a logical argument as you so love to do, but actual evidence.

I don't need to. The evidence is the evidence. It's the conclusions you draw from the evidence that is in question. Your position seems to be:

1. Witness testimony is unreliable for some % of cases
2. We don't know when a mistake will be made
3. Therefore witness testimony cannot be relied upon by itself

But the conclusion does not necessarily (in every case...therefore must) follow from the premises which is evident when we look at the opposing view:

1. Witness testimony is unreliable for some % of cases
2. We don't know when a mistake will be made 
3' Therefore care must be given when relying solely on witness testimony 

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises either. So we are left with a matter of opinion as to which one is correct. So, in spite of your sometimes less than charitable discourse with RR, you are arguing for your opinion, not the evidence, not logical conclusions, and certainly not undermining the opposing view's opinion.

I think the 3' is more reasoned and more accurately reflects reality--but that is only my opinion (that just so happens to be shared by every legal system in the world).

[The Grand Nudger]

None of that makes "witness testimony" evidence.  You;re looking for a solution as to when or if you accept witness testimony, but regardless of when or if you do or what line you draw it will still just be you -accepting- witness testimony.  

It is not transformed, by your acceptance of it, into evidence.  It is still entirely unlike those other reps of the set we've been discussing and which we call "evidence".  It still makes nothing of it's contents -evident-. You can accept that I had a cheeseburger, or not...but neither my claim that I did nor your acceptance or rejection of my claim provides -evidence- of whether or not I had a cheeseburger. It doesn't even provide evidence that -I- believe I had a cheeseburger (even if you accept my "witness testimony", and so you do believe).......it doesn't even provide evidence that cheeseburgers exist.........

That's a mighty fucking fail for something you accept as evidence. But hey, you do you.

[LadyForCamus]

Oh

The reason you are not getting what I say is I have been trying (to no avail) to show you that the issue is way more nuanced that your simplistic approach--

No, it's really not.  You just need it to be in order to rationalize your lack of skepticism.

Simplistic view:Witness testimony being "inherently unreliable as a form of evidence" needs more evidence for serious stuff if you wish to be "rational".

A.K.A., The position supported by evidence.  I noticed you haven't asked me for any yet.  I'll get to it.

More nuanced understanding: It depends.
1. This is apparent in the fact that we rely on testimony alone in hundreds of categories millions of time an hour all over the world--many in very serious situations. Why? Because we have background information that helps us determine if we can rely on it: the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record as well as the context of the event.

And what science has demonstrated, is that a perfectly healthy, cognitively intact person can still generate false memories. The rest of the factors from your list of background information are highly subjective and difficult to measure. Therefore, it remains up to us as individuals to decide which claims we're willing to accept on testimony alone, and which ones we aren't.  Also, you're leaving out one important reason why we may feel comfortable taking, say, an expert's word in many of these "serious" situations.  Corroborating evidence exists, and can be demonstrated. There exists data; dare I say facts behind the testimony.   

You admit the threshold for needing more evidence is subjective. Having differences in thresholds between people significantly undermines your simplistic view by making it a matter of opinion. And if this threshold is a matter of opinion, then so is your determination of when it is rational to believe it.

No.  What I'm saying is, one's judgements; one's personal level of skepticism is subjective, but the evidence on which we base these judgements is not. If one chooses to believe an extraordinary claim based solely on a highly subjective, inherently fallible form of evidence, well...I'd call that irrational.  

Witness testimony can corroborate witness testimony. Wouldn't two or more people testifying to a fact increase the likelihood that it is true?

Why would you make that assumption?  Do you have evidence to back it up?  Secondly, you don't get to say that people have testified to a "fact" until the thing they're testifying to has been demonstrated to be one.  That's the whole point. Would you apply this reasoning to Fatima, or UFO sightings?  Is it a fact that what people witnessed was god, or aliens, simply because they claimed it so?  

Your response to my little syllogism is confused. It was clearly in response to your simplistic view of the universal unreliability of witnesses (way back)--not as an alternative to other evidence. I think it more accurately characterizes what we are talking about than you propose.

My response to your syllogism is that it's pointless. It's unnecessary.  It advances your position not one lick.  We have real, tangible evidence that exists on one side of the argument, and nothing but a hypothetical logical argument on the other.  Your conclusion:

"The reliability of the testimony depends on the witness and the context."

How do you propose to measure these factors with any objectivity, Steve?  How are you going to test this alternative theory of evidential strength for accuracy?  Can you show that it's a more precise alternative than the evidential hierarchy we use now, with testimony currently at the bottom?  Can you show that assessing testimony via the method in your conclusion yields more true claims believed and less false claims believed, than simply withholding belief in a claim until corroborating evidence of a higher caliber arises? How will you do this? With more testimony?  An argument without evidence is just an empty vessel, Steve.  

That eye witness testimony is 'demonstrably prone to error, to a fault, and therefore inherently unreliable as a form of evidence' is a factual statement backed up by scientific research. Less than three minutes of research yielded these, and I haven't even scratched the surface of scholarly research studies on human memory:  

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...s-have-it/

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/...iable.html[/b]

Trying to refurbish a form of evidence to appear stronger than it is in order to rationalize belief in an extraordinary claim is not rational.  Take that for what it's worth.