Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9024 total)
48 online now:
jar, nwr, Taq (3 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: Ryan Merkle
Post Volume: Total: 882,898 Year: 544/14,102 Month: 544/294 Week: 31/269 Day: 11/20 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is witness testimony really to be never taken seriously? Ever?
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2003
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 8.6


(6)
Message 16 of 21 (883525)
12-14-2020 11:53 AM


Neil deGrasse Tyson on eye-witness testimony
In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street.

- from A quote from Space Chronicles


"I'd rather be an American than a Trump Supporter."

- xongsmith, 5.7d


  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8054
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 17 of 21 (883526)
12-14-2020 12:09 PM


quote:
The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence

And that's before you start looking at the science of human perception.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4017
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(5)
Message 18 of 21 (883527)
12-14-2020 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
12-11-2020 8:18 AM


coffee_addict writes:

I've been told all my adult life that human testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence in science and logic.

It is.
But do not confuse "most unreliable" with "entirely unreliable."
Also... "unreliable" doesn't mean "wrong."

I talk to people every day.
I rely on human testimony as "evidence" for things everyday.
It has a pretty useful track-record - as far as mundane, everyday events are concerned.

It's just not something I'd consider "reliable" in the search for truth that no one really knows about because there's absolutely no readily-available public evidence about it yet.

Because where those kinds of things are concerned - human testimony has proven itself over and over and over again to be pretty much useless. Counter-productive, even.

Is this really written in stone?

Like all things in science - not at all.
Prove/show/demonstrate that there's a more unreliable form of evidence, or that other forms of evidence are equally unreliable... and the idea will change, eventually.

Such is the power of science - nothing is written in stone.
Science learned looooooong ago that "things written in stone" are more limiting than they are useful for advancing knowledge.

Will credentials and a lifetime of achievements count for nothing at all?

It makes it more reliable.

It just still remains "the most unreliable" form of evidence.

Take yourself as an example.
Compare yourself from when you were a child to now, yourself as an adult.
Are you "more reliable" now than when you were younger? -Most people become more reliable as they gain experience.
If you think you know something - will you consider it "written in stone?" Or are you still capable of making a mistake, accidental or not?

Regardless of what you or anyone else says, anything people say is still "the most unreliable form of evidence."

Because people can be mistaken, or lied to without their own knowledge, or they can truly-truly-more-than-anything-triple-dog-dare believe in something that just happens to be incorrect (with or without their knowledge of it.)
Because people don't know everything.

Even people with credentials.
Even people with perfect credentials.

People are not keepers of the universe's knowledge. It's possible for anyone to make a mistake, whether purposeful or not.

If aliens are real, and already making deals with our governments, there will be reliable evidence soon enough.
And that is the only thing that will allow anyone to know that it is for real.

Not credentials.
Not "I told you so!"
Not stories.

Even if this is one day proven to be entirely correct... it will not raise "human testimony - even with amazing credentials" above being "the most unreliable form of evidence."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 12-11-2020 8:18 AM coffee_addict has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8466
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(2)
Message 19 of 21 (883548)
12-16-2020 5:52 PM


A man was convicted of rape based on the eye witness testimony from the victim, but after 25 years the conviction was overturned by DNA evidence.

DNA exonerates New York man who served 25 years for rape, insisted he was innocent

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16684
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 20 of 21 (883550)
12-17-2020 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
12-11-2020 8:18 AM


“Eye-witness testimony”? HAH!
The Debrief

When it comes to secret pacts between the U.S. Government and extraterrestrials, rather than sharing anything he had first-hand knowledge of, Shaked explained Eshed was citing information long put out in some of the more fringe circles of Ufology. Namely, a nearly 40-year-old conspiracy that President Dwight D. Eisenhower secretly met and signed an agreement with extraterrestrials.

So, not an eye-witness. No information learned in the course of his work. Just repeating the usual bullshit. Exactly as I thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 12-11-2020 8:18 AM coffee_addict has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 12-17-2020 10:12 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33125
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 21 of 21 (883551)
12-17-2020 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
12-17-2020 9:53 AM


Re: “Eye-witness testimony”? HAH!
I can believe it, after all Ike was able to work with both Montgomery and de Gaule. Gotta make lots of secret deals to make that work.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2020 9:53 AM PaulK 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