Testimony is Evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

An appeal to consequences made of straw needlessly mangled by your inability to acknowledge prior faulty reasoning, Steve.

What's next, you telling us that if we don't accept "witness testimony" the sky will fall down on our heads?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You do acknowledge that we accept witness testimony (sometimes on it own) every minute of every day right? Because the way you go on an on about this implies that the idea is irrational, and by extension, every legal system in the world is irrational.

When the claim is inconsequential, testimony may be valid. When the claim is of consequence, then testimonial suffers accordingly, because it cannot carry such weight. I wouldn't try building a multistoried building on a spongy foundation, either.

The claim that I stayed in bed this morning could be true or false, but it's unimportant in and of itself. If I claim I stayed in bed and therefore could not have committed the murder I am accused of, then my claim merits much more scrutiny due to the gravity of the situation. Taking my word for it at that point would be foolish.

[The Grand Nudger]

What have we learned?  

That testimony is not evidence.  That testimony is inherently unreliable, and that testimony must be judged against external standards.  

These dipshits have managed to argue their way into agreement with the opposition viewpoint - which was expressed on the very first page of this thread...and, as such, I'm guessing that it's time to let this one die, wait a day, and start all over again.....again.  

[LadyForCamus]

Damn!  I really thought I had something there, haha!  😛  But, my failed take down doesn't change what I was saying before; that all of this is theoretical, and based on heavily subjective metrics.  Your conclusion basically says, "don't accept unreliable testimony."[1] What practical purpose does that serve?  How does that advance our ability to distinguish between good and bad testimony in any real world capacity?  How do you suppose we apply this?  By using more testimony?  [2]

 You say, "if these things do not increase the likelihood of truth," but you have no actual way of measuring or quantifying results.  You have no way to demonstrate that "being careful", what ever that means (all this "background info" is similarly subjective, and so it may mean something different to you than it means to me) is a MORE reliable method, or at least AS reliable a method to the truth of a claim as simply withholding belief until stronger evidence arises. [3] All you have is syllogism hanging in space.

1. Remember the context of my post. I was comparing 3 and 3' --illustrating that both follow from the same premises (evidence) and the conclusions were written to address the specific question of relying solely on witness testimony. This means that both are opinion. There is no warrant in the evidence to say one is correct. My opinion matches most the world's opinion.

Bold mine:

You're asserting that it's most of the world's opinion that testimony, ALONE, so long as it is assessed with "care", is equally sufficient as evidence for all manner of claims?  Interesting.  

2. The evidence presented addresses this question. There are way to improve reliable outcomes: double-blind lineups, sequential lineups, jury instruction, ask for confidence statements, etc.

Why have you suddenly narrowed your focus to trial testimony only?  I would expect that your logic should apply to claims of any nature, correct?  Perhaps this "background information" becomes less objective, less relevant, and more difficult to control the more extraordinary the claim?  

You do acknowledge that we accept witness testimony (sometimes on it own) every minute of every day right? Because the way you go on an on about this implies that the idea is irrational, and by extension, every legal system in the world is irrational.

We've talked about this already though, haven't we?  Other types of claims besides alleged crimes exist, Steve.  You are asserting that testimony alone can be reliable evidence for all nature of claims equally and that this is at least as reasonable as withholding belief until stronger evidence arises.  I'm no logicist but I don't see how you have presented any evidential support for this assertion at all.  All you offer is this generic sort of qualifier, "care".  But you're unable to give specifics on how to implement this "care" in the real world outside of court room examples.  So...what good is it then?  

As I said before, the best you can demonstrate with your syllogism is the reliability of the witness.  It speaks nothing to the truth of the claim directly, and we know for a scientific fact that reliable witnesses give incorrect testimony all the time.

---

What have we learned?  

That testimony is not evidence.  That testimony is inherently unreliable, and that testimony must be judged against external standards.  

These dipshits have managed to argue their way into agreement with the opposition viewpoint - which was expressed on the very first page of this thread...and, as such, I'm guessing that it's time to let this one die, wait a day, and start all over again.....again.  

Oh, and that RR would believe in gremlins so long as I promised him I wasn't hallucinating.  😏

[The Grand Nudger]

We already knew that going in.

[LadyForCamus]

@steve -

I believe you are trying to sneak science through the back door without having to actually do it. Phrases like, 'take care,' and 'background information' are just softer, and less threatening than saying 'controlling variables' and, 'gathering data.' You don't get to call upon these tools and then let them hang in the empty space of a syllogism. You're responsible for them. You're asserting there exists a method of quality control which allows us to distinguish (to some as of yet unspecified degree of accuracy) between reliable and unreliable testimony, and that in doing so, we can reasonably accept claims based on testimony alone. You don't get to assert that, and then hide behind a logical argument. You bare the burden of demonstrating the efficacy of this proposed method. If you can't, then your conclusion is meaningless to the real world. Two points:

1. I don't think you could if you tried. Even if you were able to control for every single one of the metrics you listed, you're still only demonstrating, at best, that your witness is reliable. Witness reliability does not necessarily equal accurate testimony, as reliable witnesses give inaccurate testimony all the time.

2. If you were able to demonstrate this method to be at least as efficacious as holding one's breath on a testimonial until stronger evidence arises, it renders your argument dead in the water, as you have now relied on objective, external, corroborating evidence to support a logical conclusion about testimony being reliable and sufficient on its own, in the absence of corroborating evidence.

I dare say all of this was just elaborate hand-waving in order to shift the focus on to the nature of claimant and away from the nature of the claim. I wonder why that would be?

[LadyForCamus]

No one?! Wtf!

[Minimalist]

You're asserting that it's most of the world's opinion that testimony, ALONE, so long as it is assessed with "care", is equally sufficient as evidence for all manner of claims?  Interesting. 

Most of the world is full of ignorant religitards so he may have a point.  But he's still wrong.

[LadyForCamus]

You're asserting that it's most of the world's opinion that testimony, ALONE, so long as it is assessed with "care", is equally sufficient as evidence for all manner of claims?  Interesting. 

Most of the world is full of ignorant religitards so he may have a point.  But he's still wrong.

Good point.

[Brian37]

@steve -

I believe you are trying to sneak science through the back door without having to actually do it.  Phrases like, 'take care,' and 'background information' are just softer, and less threatening than saying 'controlling variables' and, 'gathering data.'  You don't get to call upon these tools and then let them hang in the empty space of a syllogism.  You're responsible for them.  You're asserting there exists a method of quality control which allows us to distinguish (to some as of yet unspecified degree of accuracy) between reliable and unreliable testimony, and that in doing so, we can reasonably accept claims based on testimony alone.  You don't get to assert that, and then hide behind a logical argument.  You bare the burden of demonstrating the efficacy of this proposed method.  If you can't, then your conclusion is meaningless to the real world.  Two points:

1. I don't think you could if you tried. Even if you were able to control for every single one of the metrics you listed, you're still only demonstrating, at best, that your witness is reliable.  Witness reliability does not necessarily equal accurate testimony, as reliable witnesses give inaccurate testimony all the time.  

2.  If you were able to demonstrate this method to be at least as efficacious as holding one's breath on a testimonial until stronger evidence arises, it renders your argument dead in the water, as you have now relied on objective, external, corroborating evidence to support a logical conclusion about testimony being reliable and sufficient on its own, in the absence of corroborating evidence.  

I dare say all of this was just elaborate hand-waving in order to shift the focus on to the nature of claimant and away from the nature of the claim.  I wonder why that would be?

Yep, after 16 years of online debate with theists of every label you can think of, when you hear, "I'm not trying to argue my religion,(insert Christianity, Islam, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist) here, it is a dead give away that they will in the future, maybe not in the moment you are engaging in, but the theist always does.

If they cant argue flat out, they get sneaky by trying to either debunk science or try to co op science. It is like exposing a Vegas sidewalk 3 cup and ball trick. 

The problem is as much as they are trying to convince you, even more what they are really doing is trying to convince themselves. Theism is not neutral or objective or universal. It never has been nor will be.