Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence and testimonial: A fundamental split
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 1 of 24 (131828)
08-09-2004 8:33 AM


Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
I would suggest that there seems to be a fundamental split (at the broadest level) in what constitutes evidence and/or proof for various phenomena or historical events between both camps on this board.
In this thread, I would like to concentrate on one particular area, the use of the testimonial in all its forms — oral, written and video. For the creationists, it would seem that those are valid forms of evidence and carry equal weight in determining validity with lab tests, experiments etc.
It would appear to me (on first glance), that this is a nature consequence of a testimonial-based faith system.
I would ask the following (to both evo and creo):
1) Under what circumstances do you consider testimonial evidence to be good evidence? (And the reverse)
2) Is it, as I muse above, a natural consequence of being part of a faith-based system?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-09-2004 10:40 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2004 11:36 AM CK has replied
 Message 6 by Jasonb, posted 08-19-2004 1:50 PM CK has not replied
 Message 9 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-19-2004 2:23 PM CK has not replied
 Message 10 by Gastric ReFlux, posted 08-19-2004 3:05 PM CK has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 24 (131841)
08-09-2004 10:59 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 24 (131856)
08-09-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-09-2004 8:33 AM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
(Side note: please don't use red text, Charles, it's real hard on the eyes on the blue background)
I disagree. I think the fact that 'we' don't accept testimonial evidence because we've been educated in it's weaknesses, and in the application of better methods - creationists on the other hand are much closer to 'the man on the street'. Studies have repeatedly shown that: 1. eyewitness testimony is incredible unreliable, 2. the man on the street is very impressed by it.
I imagine a similar thing leads to those testimonial that festoon products aimed at the lower classes - "we took out a rip off loan scheme from Ocean Finance and we're really pleased that we only need to pay back five times as much we borrowed!", etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 8:33 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 11:41 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 4 of 24 (131857)
08-09-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
08-09-2004 11:36 AM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
Mr.Jacks - thanks for the reply (I've changed it from red to bold - hope that helps).
I'm unclear which point you disagree with? is it the influence of a faith-based system.
Ocean finance,eh? you've got to stop reading daytime TV...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2004 11:36 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2004 12:01 PM CK has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 5 of 24 (131870)
08-09-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CK
08-09-2004 11:41 AM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
If I read you correctly, you're saying the Creationist's faith in testimonial is a side effect of having a faith based belief system, yes?
I'm saying that it's the default state - one that we've moved beyond because we're better educated and know about such things. In the same way that people who haven't been shown better are likely to say that sweating makes you hot, heavier objects fall faster and the sun goes round the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 11:41 AM CK has not replied

  
Jasonb
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 24 (135272)
08-19-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-09-2004 8:33 AM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
Who can deny that people give false or inaccurate testimony both purposely and accidentally? Some very sane very honest people swear they saw something when the fact of the matter is they simply are mistaken. And sometimes people flat out lie.
So certainly we should always take what others say with a grain of salt, even the Bible says it takes two or more eye witnesses to convict someone of a crime, but certainly it would be wrong of us to totally dismiss testimonial evidence, sometimes people get it right.
I think it would also be unwise to always take hard evidence, ie: lab tests, experiments, etc, at face value. First of all, evidence/facts/data must be processed and interpreted by humans. Yes, the same humans who can be wrong about there own eye witness testimony. Second, even evidence/facts/data that are processed and interpreted correctly can only tell us limited information about the thing we are studying. Because lets face it the evidence of a thing is not the thing.
Of course I am not implying that nothing can ever be learned because no evidence can ever be reliable. Certainly there comes a point when the preponderance of evidence suggests the hypothesis, but that applies to both physical and testimonial evidence. I hope I have made sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 8:33 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2004 1:59 PM Jasonb has replied
 Message 8 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-19-2004 2:07 PM Jasonb has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 24 (135273)
08-19-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jasonb
08-19-2004 1:50 PM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
quote:
I think it would also be unwise to always take hard evidence, ie: lab tests, experiments, etc, at face value. First of all, evidence/facts/data must be processed and interpreted by humans. Yes, the same humans who can be wrong about there own eye witness testimony. Second, even evidence/facts/data that are processed and interpreted correctly can only tell us limited information about the thing we are studying. Because lets face it the evidence of a thing is not the thing.
Except that lab tests, experiments, etc are not taken at face value. They must be independently reproducible to have any value. This is successful at confirming evidence and recognizing experimental error (or even fraud). The same cannot be said about testimonial evidence...I can say that person X committed a crime but you cannot experience my observation to verify my claim. DNA evidence on the other hand can be gathered and tested by anyone for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jasonb, posted 08-19-2004 1:50 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Jasonb, posted 08-19-2004 5:30 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 8 of 24 (135275)
08-19-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jasonb
08-19-2004 1:50 PM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
First of all, evidence/facts/data must be processed and interpreted by humans. Yes, the same humans who can be wrong about there own eye witness testimony.
Jasonb,
The fact that some can make incorrect conclusions based on evidence points out a fundamental difference between testimony and evidence.
Testimony is evidence and conclusion wrapped into one, (and sometimes only conclusion). There is no way for someone to objectively reanalyze testimony.
Evidence itself has no taint of conclusion on it, so though incorrect conclusions can be made based on evidence, the evidence itself remains non-subjective and can thus be reanalyzed, reinterpreted, and recreated.
My point- Human fallability does not break the line between the reliability of testimony and evidence, since the former is subjective, and the latter objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jasonb, posted 08-19-2004 1:50 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jasonb, posted 08-19-2004 5:41 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 9 of 24 (135280)
08-19-2004 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-09-2004 8:33 AM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
CK- I understand your frustration, especially given the countless cries of "but you didn't see the video" or "I heard his interview/lecture" resounding across this forum. Unfortunately those using these as 'evidence' don't realize that they're actually giving 'testimony of testimony'.
More important for understanding some of the discussions here:
Perhaps it also explains why, when someone gives a citation of a peer-reviewed journal article as a source of evidence, many state things like, "Well why should I trust that author any more than you?" or ask for his qualifications, or some appeal to authority (or lack thereof) fallacy.
What seems sad is that many seem to disrespect people doing real science and publishing in peer-reviewed journal because of the fact that they do not have a huge public personality, complete with flashy websites and videos-for-sale. Apparently if such a website doesn't come up on a web-search, the scientist can't be very important in some mindsets.
It would be helpful if some realized that real scientists are quite 'quiet' about their work, and don't have time to write books and make videos for the public, at least not in the first thirty years of their career, and even later-life layman's offerings are a rarity.
However, I think I'll side with Mr.Jack on the lack-of-education side, as opposed to the faith-based argument. I think all of us were formally educated via testimony at some point, and many throughout high school and college. Many do not outgrow the "teacher is the source of knowledge" mindset that is learned in elementary school.
(Though, I believe in the US there is an inverse relationship in the population between formal education and religious belief, so your hypothesis may be correct by correlation if not causation.)
You bring up an important topic - hopefully its effects will trickle down at least a little into other discussions...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 8:33 AM CK has not replied

  
Gastric ReFlux
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 24 (135291)
08-19-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CK
08-09-2004 8:33 AM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
It was a few years back, or maybe even longer, that I read a book (can't remember the title!) about the difficulties of memory. Hopefully, I remember the basic thesis which was something like this: we are lousy in our memory of specific details, but pretty good at the general themes of the memories. Memories, though, are subject to being compressed into other memories, changed, and such.
You know what? I found it very disturbing at a certain level in me. You mean that clear memory I have of catching a baseball for the first time is, well, not so clear, and maybe not even real?
I submit, then, that there are least two factors in what makes eyewitness testimony compelling to our species in general: one is that we believe that our own memories are accurate always, and two, memories in general do good work in teaching us what's important. A species that could not fundamentally trust in its own memories wouldn't stand a chance in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CK, posted 08-09-2004 8:33 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 08-19-2004 4:57 PM Gastric ReFlux has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 24 (135326)
08-19-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Gastric ReFlux
08-19-2004 3:05 PM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
Good point, on that note, there was an experient run a few years ago. People leaving disneyworld were shown a video set inside the park and showing various characters (mickey mouse and the like).
However when shown fake footage of non-disney characters, most swore blind that they were in the park!
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-19-2004 04:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Gastric ReFlux, posted 08-19-2004 3:05 PM Gastric ReFlux has not replied

  
Jasonb
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 24 (135336)
08-19-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
08-19-2004 1:59 PM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
Hey Mammuthus, thanks for responding,
Except that lab tests, experiments, etc are not taken at face value. They must be independently reproducible to have any value. This is successful at confirming evidence and recognizing experimental error (or even fraud). The same cannot be said about testimonial evidence...I can say that person X committed a crime but you cannot experience my observation to verify my claim. DNA evidence on the other hand can be gathered and tested by anyone for example.
That leads me down a new path, bare with me I haven’t thought this through. Unless you actually did the DNA test you would be relying on someone else’s verification. You could read their results but they could make up results, so unless you actually performed the test you would not have true knowledge of the results. But here’s the catch, why should I trust your analysis, unless I do the analysis I will not have true knowledge and so on and so on.
I think you will say, well if enough people run the DNA test and all come up with the same results, then this would be confirming the evidence. But can the same thing be said about eye witness testimony. If enough people confirm it, how doubtful is it? Just thinking out loud here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 08-19-2004 1:59 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CK, posted 08-19-2004 5:37 PM Jasonb has not replied
 Message 24 by Mammuthus, posted 08-20-2004 3:50 AM Jasonb has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 13 of 24 (135339)
08-19-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jasonb
08-19-2004 5:30 PM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
I think you will say, well if enough people run the DNA test and all come up with the same results, then this would be confirming the evidence. But can the same thing be said about eye witness testimony. If enough people confirm it, how doubtful is it? Just thinking out loud here.
No not really - take my disney example, I could show as many people as I want the fake videos, a large percentage are always going to get it wrong. If I have 1,000,000 people giving the wrong answer does that make it any less wrong?
The study found that misleading information from the stooge had more influence than a written report, with 44% of witnesses misled compared with 31% confused by the written report.
Plus people's testomony tends to influence others and how they recall events:
http://www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?03742
In regards to video - many people remember seeing the redness of the blood in the shower scene in pyscho.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-19-2004 04:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jasonb, posted 08-19-2004 5:30 PM Jasonb has not replied

  
Jasonb
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (135343)
08-19-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by pink sasquatch
08-19-2004 2:07 PM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
Hey PS.
Testimony is evidence and conclusion wrapped into one, (and sometimes only conclusion). There is no way for someone to objectively reanalyze testimony.
Well that leads to a new question. What is the value of first hand knowledge. If I want to teach my nine year old daughter about gravity, I could pull out the old physics books and do all the mathematical equations for her and say, there that’s gravity. Or I could grab a ball go outside, throw it in the air and have her experience gravity first hand.
Or what if I wanted to know what honey tasted like. I could go to a chemists and have them tell me the chemical composition of honey and write a 3000 page dissertation on the taste of honey, or I could talk to someone who has actually tasted honey. The one with personal knowledge of the taste of honey would be a better source for me to gain knowledge. Of course if I wanted absolute knowledge I would have to taste honey for myself. Ill stop now because I feel I am rambling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-19-2004 2:07 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by CK, posted 08-19-2004 5:43 PM Jasonb has not replied
 Message 17 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-19-2004 6:03 PM Jasonb has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 15 of 24 (135344)
08-19-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jasonb
08-19-2004 5:41 PM


Re: Evidence and testimony: a fundamental split
But Jason, the taste of honey will depend on 101 factors - and would still be entirely sunjective.
A chemical analysis of various honeys would allow us to identify like for like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jasonb, posted 08-19-2004 5:41 PM Jasonb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by CK, posted 08-19-2004 5:45 PM CK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024