Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[LadyForCamus]

With respect to the OP, the issue largely comes up with respect to NT reliability. The point generally made by believers is that skeptics have ruled out the supernatural in advance or at least raised the burden of proof to an unobtainable level. As such the very nature of the thing we are trying to prove serves as the reason given for not accepting evidence of it. It's a no win situation.

My personal position on this particular subject is that if god is penetrating the natural world with physical events such as floods, Jesus, and miracles, etc., there should be some physical evidence left behind.

[Neo-Scholastic]

With respect to the OP, the issue largely comes up with respect to NT reliability. The point generally made by believers is that skeptics have ruled out the supernatural in advance or at least raised the burden of proof to an unobtainable level. As such the very nature of the thing we are trying to prove serves as the reason given for not accepting evidence of it. It's a no win situation.

My personal position on this particular subject is that if god is penetrating the natural world with physical events such as floods, Jesus, and miracles, etc., there should be some physical evidence left behind.

That's fair. That's what biblical archeology is for. For example, we have a pretty good idea of where the pool of Bethesda was. At the same time, we do not require any physical proof of Socrates or Alexander the Great.

[bennyboy]

So I think the conclusion is that testimony in and of itself is not evidence. Because you believe the testimony of these women not simply because they made allegations but for more than that.

Yes, but having reasons for accepting the testimony beyond the testimony in and of itself requires that I make judgement calls and subjective evaluations of factors such as source and witness credibility, the personal/professional history of the accused, and my overall level of credulity for the accusation itself, taking context into account.  The testimony alone isn't evidence, but neither are these other reasons that I have concluded support it.  Are they?

There's real danger here, on both sides.  There is a possibility that you accept testimony from a woman, and then charge a man with a crime he never committed.  There's also a possibility that you refuse to accept testimony from a woman, and then a man is never charged with a crime he definitely committed.

Does the seriousness of the crime determine the degree to which it should be considered without good evidence?  In colleges, the answer is very clearly yes-- if a girl accuses a boy of sexual misconduct, he's likely in for a world of pain.  If she can talk two friends into supporting her-- he may be fucked.  The same goes for teachers.

But the former state was no better, when women who were brave enough to stand up and be heard would be asked for evidence, or asked about their motivations, or whether they were leading the guy on.

tbh I don't have an answer for this.  It really seems that there's no right position here.

[LadyForCamus]

To be clear guys: I'm not implying that these women's testimony should not be accepted. I'm saying the opposite. I do believe them. I do believe they are credible. I do accept their testimony.

And yet when Ken Starr's Whitewater probe investigated the claims of Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Wiley he found that they were not credible witnesses and dismissed them.  "Belief" is useless.  "Credibility" takes time to determine.  Subsequent events in Moore's case provide a significant amount of supporting evidence.

Sure, so we're building a "case" against Moore based on testimony, corroborating hearsay, and established credibility of the witnesses/sources.  But, does any of that technically qualify as evidence? I'm not arguing over the principals of reason in play here, as much as it probably seems like it.  I guess I'm just being a pedantic asshole about what we get to call "evidence".

[Ravenshire]

For me the question has never been if testimony can be accepted as evidence, but if it can be accepted as evidence on it's own.

It's the same question in this case.  What evidence will there be for sexual assault that happened maybe a decade or more ago?

On the other side of that, how reliable is testimony on events that happened a decade or more ago? I'm not ready to throw anyone in prison with the only evidence being reliant on the very unreliable human memory.

---

Yes, but having reasons for accepting the testimony beyond the testimony in and of itself requires that I make judgement calls and subjective evaluations of factors such as source and witness credibility, the personal/professional history of the accused, and my overall level of credulity for the accusation itself, taking context into account.  The testimony alone isn't evidence, but neither are these other reasons that I have concluded support it.  Are they?

There's real danger here, on both sides.  There is a possibility that you accept testimony from a woman, and then charge a man with a crime he never committed.  There's also a possibility that you refuse to accept testimony from a woman, and then a man is never charged with a crime he definitely committed.

Does the seriousness of the crime determine the degree to which it should be considered without good evidence?  In colleges, the answer is very clearly yes-- if a girl accuses a boy of sexual misconduct, he's likely in for a world of pain.  If she can talk two friends into supporting her-- he may be fucked.  The same goes for teachers.

But the former state was no better, when women who were brave enough to stand up and be heard would be asked for evidence, or asked about their motivations, or whether they were leading the guy on.

tbh I don't have an answer for this.  It really seems that there's no right position here.

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."

~Benjamin Franklin

[Amarok]

No Wooter it has not been ruled out before hand . No matter how much you wanna keep that straw man going . It's a simple fact we have no reason to accept it. Not to mention the fact it's not merely because it's supernatural the NT is rejected . It's the simple fact it FAILS as history .

[Ravenshire]

And yet when Ken Starr's Whitewater probe investigated the claims of Juanita Broadrick and Kathleen Wiley he found that they were not credible witnesses and dismissed them.  "Belief" is useless.  "Credibility" takes time to determine.  Subsequent events in Moore's case provide a significant amount of supporting evidence.

Sure, so we're building a "case" against Moore based on testimony, corroborating hearsay, and established credibility of the witnesses/sources.  But, does any of that technically qualify as evidence? I'm not arguing over the principals of reason in play here, as much as it probably seems like it.  I guess I'm just being a pedantic asshole about what we get to call "evidence".

Under our current legal system, it does. And, if eventually convicted (though we all know how much a long shot that is) he won't be the first to be done up on evidence alone. That DNA evidence overturning many of those convictions has had little to no effect in changing that is sad and a little frightening. To think that two people willing to perjure themselves is all that stands between anyone in this country and a prison cell is a horrific thought.

[LadyForCamus]

I know everyone is sick of raking over this particular subject. I just know that I've said in so many words, 'hearsay and testimony are not evidence, and claims which carry serious consequences shouldn't be accepted on those things, alone.' But, in the case is Roy Moore I have done exactly that, and I think that despite a total lack of physical evidence, the conclusion that he is probably guilty is a reasonable one.

[Ravenshire]

I know everyone is sick of raking over this particular subject.  I just know that I've said in so many words, 'hearsay and testimony are not evidence, and claims which carry serious consequences shouldn't be accepted on those things, alone.'  But, in the case is Roy Moore I have done exactly that, and I think that despite a total lack of physical evidence, the conclusion that he is probably guilty is a reasonable one.

In the court of public opinion, I would agree. In a legal court of law, I don't believe it satisfies the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I think the guy is as guilty as the sky is blue. That doesn't mean I'd be ready to vote to convict him on the charges with the current level of evidence, were I on the jury.

[LadyForCamus]

I know everyone is sick of raking over this particular subject.  I just know that I've said in so many words, 'hearsay and testimony are not evidence, and claims which carry serious consequences shouldn't be accepted on those things, alone.'  But, in the case is Roy Moore I have done exactly that, and I think that despite a total lack of physical evidence, the conclusion that he is probably guilty is a reasonable one.

In the court of public opinion, I would agree. In a legal court of law, I don't believe it satisfies the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I think the guy is as guilty as the sky is blue. That doesn't mean I'd be ready to vote to convict him on the charges with the current level of evidence, were I on the jury.

Agreed.  I'm assuming the statute of limitations has run out for the women in Moore's case?