Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9048 total)
138 online now:
kjsimons, xongsmith (2 members, 136 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,585 Year: 5,231/14,102 Month: 152/677 Week: 11/26 Day: 11/2 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Interrogation of an Apostle
Inactive Member

Message 40 of 48 (607096)
03-02-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
02-27-2011 6:18 PM

Re: On Reliability and Truth
Jon writes:

There is a difference between a report being reliable and a report being true. Very reliable reports may not be true, and very true reports needn't be reliable. Reliability is a measure of how much trust we—the audience—place in the reporter giving the account;

I think you mean credibility rather than reliability. Reliable reports must be truthful or capable to be relied on even if we ultimately we don't or won't rely on them. On the other hand, credibility indicates how much trust the audience should have in an account. False reports may be credible but by definition, they are not reliable.

There is a good reason why real investigations prefer live testimony of witnesses over affidavits from witnesses. Most of the indicators of credibility (particularly witness demeanor, slip ups during cross examination, eye contact, etc.) are simply absent from written testimony.

To determine the truth of an account we can do only one thing: examine the account against physical evidence and check for corroboration in other accounts.

I think ignoring the credibility of the accounts is a huge mistake. No investigator would do this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 02-27-2011 6:18 PM Jon has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021