Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[LadyForCamus]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this.

In light of everything going on in the county right now with powerful men and sexual assault/harassment, it got me thinking about our past discussions regarding testimony as evidence.  Though there were some nuanced differences of opinion among the atheists who participated in those discussions, on the whole it seems most of us hold the position that testimony is not evidence, and that quantity speaks nothing of quality.  Are we being hypocritical then, in accepting these allegations at face value?  If we're being true to our stated position, then we're either:

1. Accepting a serious claim as true a despite total lack of evidence 

Or

2. Accepting the testimony as evidence 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't believe these women.  I'm also not conceding that the Bible qualifies as eye-witness testimony.  I'm just wondering if we've been unfairly rigid to our theists in these debates regarding the nature of evidence.  

Thoughts?

[Aoi Magi]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this.

In light of everything going on in the county right now with powerful men and sexual assault/harassment, it got me thinking about our past discussions regarding testimony as evidence.  Though there were some nuanced differences of opinion among the atheists who participated in those discussions, on the whole it seems most of us hold the position that testimony is not evidence, and that quantity speaks nothing of quality.  Are we being hypocritical then, in accepting these allegations at face value?  If we're being true to our stated position, then we're either:

1. Accepting a serious claim as true a despite total lack of evidence 

Or

2. Accepting the testimony as evidence 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't believe these women.  I'm also not conceding that the Bible qualifies as eye-witness testimony.  I'm just wondering if we've been unfairly rigid to our theists in these debates regarding the nature of evidence.  

Thoughts?

Let's say a woman claims she has been raped. There's not much room for her misunderstanding what had happened to her, moreover in most situations her claim is testable. On the other hand, if there is a n extraordinary claim like the sun dancing in the sky, only for a specific few individuals, not only does it leave room for a lot of ways the event could have been misinterpreted, but it is mostly untestable and moreover contradicts our known reality.

[Mister Agenda]

Testimony in itself is a claim, not evidence, but comparing different claims can yield evidence.

[possibletarian]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this.

In light of everything going on in the county right now with powerful men and sexual assault/harassment, it got me thinking about our past discussions regarding testimony as evidence.  Though there were some nuanced differences of opinion among the atheists who participated in those discussions, on the whole it seems most of us hold the position that testimony is not evidence, and that quantity speaks nothing of quality.  Are we being hypocritical then, in accepting these allegations at face value?  If we're being true to our stated position, then we're either:

1. Accepting a serious claim as true a despite total lack of evidence 

Or

2. Accepting the testimony as evidence 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't believe these women.  I'm also not conceding that the Bible qualifies as eye-witness testimony.  I'm just wondering if we've been unfairly rigid to our theists in these debates regarding the nature of evidence.  

Thoughts?

We can often prove that

a) the accused exists,
b) the accuser exists.

If then we can prove that these proven to exist people were in the same place at the same time, then we can move from there, the evidence and witnesses (who we can also prove existed) are interviewed, accounts drawn together, maybe scientific evidence produced if there is any, then conclusions drawn.  Often the accused admits some kind of wrongdoing, even if denying the details of the accusers account of events.

But if then the accuser starts to say that a person was not there in person, but astrally projected himself to her room at night and made lewd suggestions and perhaps inappropriate astral touching, then that's when it gets into comparing properly.  Eye witness accounts of the unprovable are not the same as for something we know happens, and can provide evidence of happening everyday.

I believe most theists when they relate something they have felt or experienced, well to a degree, as an ex Christian I know often the mind can exaggerate what you see to fit it in some spiritual context but mostly i believe experiences, and i think it's fair to say there are some things I cannot explain.  Eyewitness or personal experience of the unlikely will always receive more scrutiny than a recounting of an everyday testable experience.

I think also we believe these accusations true simply because we have been hearing rumours over a long time, we know what men in power over people are like, and what they are likely to do, sometimes we will jump to conclusions which is a shame. But that is why we have a system of justice and the right to be judged by our peers to make at least an attempt to get to the bottom of any event if we choose to deny it ever happened.

P

[LastPoet]

In Portugal we had a case an 11 y old accused her dad of rape, the guy spent 7 years in prison.

Until the daughter grown of age recanted and told ot was mom that manipulated her to say that. Guy got free, but he said he wasn't ready to forgive his daughter.

In these cases, thread lightly. And whoever get raped I encourage everyone to keep the evidence and go to the cops. I know one needs to clean itself, but preserve the evidence, so the fucker won't get away.

[Edwardo Piet]

Testimony indeed isn't evidence but as far as I am aware the evidence for these allegations isn't just bare allegations themselves (because that's not evidence).

Like when Louis C.K. admits the allegations are true, for instance . . . that's certainly strong evidence that they are true.

Indeed allegations are not evidence of the truth of allegations otherwise anybody could just accuse anybody of anything and they wouldn't even have to back it up.

[vorlon13]

In regards to Franken, he acknowledges it, so we've got that.

I find the Roy Moore allegations credible except for the one represented by Gloria Allred.  And I concede that one could be true too but sending Gloria to Alabama is a HUGE and OBVIOUS blunder if the goal was to impede Roy's election.  If I thought he was smarter, I could imagine Roy sending a minion to induce Gloria to come to Alabama.  If one thing could put Moore in the senate despite true and compelling allegations, it would be Gloria Allred.  

Sorry if I'm stereotyping Alabamians, but I'm just 'stereotyping' enough of them so as to insure Moore wins that senate seat.

I found the Scandal Made Me Famous/Monica Lewinsky episode especially damning in regards to Clinton's conduct.  His emotional manipulation of an obviously inappropriate woman to be having an affair with is putrid.  It also belies his denials in regards to his other victims.  He is indeed capable of what he has been accused of.  Having paid staff organized into a rapid response team to literally battle "bimbo eruptions"  is nauseating to me.  Hiring people to enable ones sexual addictions ??    Jesus Fucking Christ, I'm a 12 Stepper, that there is a fucking clue thing.  Hell, I was paying a psychologist to help me make alcoholism work better for me.  Fortunately, my 'shrink' figured out my little dodge, and had enough ethics to send me to 12 Steppers instead of making money on my attempts to perfect my drinking problem.

Kinda makes my skin crawl a bit to realize I have this level of insight into Bill Clinton's sickness . . . . . .

[Catholic_Lady]

As Steve and Neo have explained, testimony IS evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence, and it isnt necessarily proof... but it is considered evidence nonetheless.

---

.
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-testimony/

What is testimony?

Testimony is evidence given during discovery, at a trial or a hearing by a competent person who is under oath.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact.

[Whateverist]

Big difference between a claim of rape and a claim that there is a 'supernatural' being which we can't detect but which can reach in and mess with us. God belief requires you to accept as plausible the existence of something the like of which is entirely unknown.

I think that up until now the benefit of the doubt has greatly favored men. That probably needs correcting. But the basis for evidence is still tricky and you can't give women carte blanche either.

[Edwardo Piet]

The quality of the testimony matters though.

Someone saying "I was raped" is not evidence of the truth that they were raped in and of itself. They usually give more details than that . . .

A testimony is more than a bare assertion, basically. And a legal testimony is not a religious testimony. "God did it" is not a testimony. And describing the details of something magical and imaginary is testimony to nothing more than a testimony of one's deluded belief.

---

 I'm just wondering if we've been unfairly rigid to our theists in these debates regarding the nature of evidence.  

IMO a lot of atheists aren't rigid enough. As far as I am concerned it's not only that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but it's also the case that when you define a god belief in such a way that their existence is indistinguishable from their nonexistence and they are completely unfalsifiable.... then it's not possible for there to even be evidence of God.

Even if God turned up, became visible, appeared before us and said "I am the Christian God" we still couldn't distinguish that from, for example, a superintelligent and superadvanced telepathic alien being fucking with us.

And in fact it's worse than that, because if a supernatural being is by definition outside of space and time and nature then if it appears before us it's by definition not God whatever it is.

---

Testimony in itself is a claim, not evidence, but comparing different claims can yield evidence.

^ This

It's important to remember that legal testimony is different to simply testimony. Actual legal testimony is more than simply "X happened".