What are the standards for evidence?

[arthra]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.
So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

If I was trying to understand your family I would try to have a consult with you and your mother where you would say "My mother loves me!" and she would respond ....

For me a process of seeking is required to obtain evidence... We are obligated I feel over our lifetimes to experiment and see for ourselves .. to independently investigate truth and not simply to accept something without question.

"The state in which one should be to seriously search for the truth is the condition of the thirsty, burning soul desiring the water of life, of the fish struggling to reach the sea, of the sufferer seeking for the true doctor to obtain the divine cure, of the lost caravan endeavoring to find the right road, of the lost and wandering ship striving to reach the shore of salvation."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 38

 

[LukeS]

Evidence I respect. eg. humanists meeting in a pub versus bright souled sadhus in a temple. Compare and contrast. Not exactly direct evidence of anything transcendent, but it will do for me. And I 'm not even Hindu. The standards are secular: i.e. well being and beautiful architecture, sober enjoyment, effective social organisation. It seems that the religious often do secular values better then atheists, so that points to an ineffectuality of secularism. People with "the answer" ought to be people I look up to and respect. On paper atheism is pretty logical, in real life it can be a shambles - please don't take too personally, this is a friendly comment..

 

[Curious George]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

Anything offerred in support of a proposition that serves to make the truth of the proposition more likely than not.

 

[Curious George]

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

It is my understanding that (for the most part) eye witness testimony (any unvalidated testimony) is no longer seen as legal evidence.

This is not true.

 

[Curious George]

I noticed people keep using that word extraordinary, which is interesting as there is no definitive objective measurement of when something is extraordinary. Yet to a large degree most people can agree when something is extraordinary, so there must be a set of standards by which we judge something as extraordinary.

Something which is or appears to be extremely improbable. Things are improbable when the calculated probability is lower than 50%. Extremely is a valuation that will vary from person to person.

Things appear to be improbable when given our experience and estimations we guess that they have a probability less than 50%. Extrememly is a valuation that will vary from person to person.

Things may appear or seem improbable such as the liklihood of two people on a soccer/football field sharing a birthday, when they are in fact probable.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

This is not true.

Yes it is or can you prove your claim?

Because i can prove mine
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

The limits of eyewitness testimony

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Eyewitness testimony no longer a 'gold standard'

Vagaries of memory mean eyewitness testimony isn't perfect

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...ay-only-be-credible-under-these-circumstances

Eyewitness Accounts Still Prove Problematic in the Criminal Justice System

Notice my wording "It is my understanding that (for the most part) eye witness testimony (any unvalidated testimony) is no longer seen as legal evidence."

So, over to you to prove your claim

 

[ChristineM]

This is not true.

Yes it is or can you prove your claim?

Because i can prove mine
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

The limits of eyewitness testimony

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Eyewitness testimony no longer a 'gold standard'

Vagaries of memory mean eyewitness testimony isn't perfect

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...ay-only-be-credible-under-these-circumstances

Eyewitness Accounts Still Prove Problematic in the Criminal Justice System

Notice my wording "It is my understanding that (for the most part) eye witness testimony (any unvalidated testimony) is no longer seen as legal evidence."

So, over to you to prove your claim

 

[Curious George]

Yes it is or can you prove your claim?

Because i can prove mine
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

The limits of eyewitness testimony

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Eyewitness testimony no longer a 'gold standard'

Vagaries of memory mean eyewitness testimony isn't perfect

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...ay-only-be-credible-under-these-circumstances

Eyewitness Accounts Still Prove Problematic in the Criminal Justice System

Notice my wording "It is my understanding that (for the most part) eye witness testimony (any unvalidated testimony) is no longer seen as legal evidence."

So, over to you to prove your claim

Sure every court in the u.s. allows testimony. All evidence is introduced through testimony. Therefore, all courts accept testimony as evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure every court in the u.s. allows testimony. All evidence is introduced through testimony. Therefore, all courts accept testimony as evidence.

Introduced... Yes... However testimony is no linger used to decide a case unless verified by other means.

And 95% of the world population is not US so us courts are pretty irrelevant.

 

[Curious George]

Introduced... Yes... However testimony is no linger used to decide a case unless verified by other means.

And 95% of the world population is not US so us courts are pretty irrelevant.

You have two points here. Shall we address them one at a time. Let us set aside the percentage of the legal use of evidence that the U.S. represents. And discuss that system. We can move to the other systems later.

What I need you to accept here is that evidence introduced through testimony relies on testimonial evidence. It is testimony that is believed or not which says what the evidence is. Without chain of custody proven through testimony, the dna evidence means nothing. We always rely on testimony. Nothing is going to take that away un our legal system.

 

[ChristineM]

You have two points here. Shall we address them one at a time. Let us set aside the percentage of the legal use of evidence that the U.S. represents. And discuss that system. We can move to the other systems later.

What I need you to accept here is that evidence introduced through testimony relies on testimonial evidence. It is testimony that is believed or not which says what the evidence is. Without chain of custody proven through testimony, the dna evidence means nothing. We always rely on testimony. Nothing is going to take that away un our legal system.

You are confusing giving evidence (a verbal action) and eyewitness testimony to which i have been referring throughout this discussion.

Yet i have provided links several documents that contradict your "Nothing is going to take that away" and what have you done to validate your claims?

 

[Curious George]

You are confusing giving evidence (a verbal action) and eyewitness testimony to which i have been referring throughout this discussion.

Yet i have provided links several documents that contradict your "Nothing is going to take that away" and what have you done to validate your claims?

I am not confusing the two.

We are still relying on testimony. If I am a jury member, I have to believe the eyewitness testimony of the doctor that says he took the cheek swab. I have to believe the eyewitness testimony of the lab tech that says he ran the specific dna from the cheek swab. I have to believe the coroner or detective who say they took another dna sample from the body. I have to believe them that the sample was handled in a specific manner. And i have to believe the lab tech that ran the specific sample and compared it to another specific sample taken from the defendent. All of this is eyewitness testimony. Forget the dNA report. That is not what I am discussing. I am talking about the eyewitness testimony on which I am relying. Thos is how the U.S legal system works. We use testimonial evidence. Most of that is eyewitness some of that is expert witness but you are mistaken to think that we do not rely on eyewitness testimony.

 

[ChristineM]

I am not confusing the two.

We are still relying on testimony. If I am a jury member, I have to believe the eyewitness testimony of the doctor that says he took the cheek swab. I have to believe the eyewitness testimony of the lab tech that says he ran the specific dna from the cheek swab. I have to believe the coroner or detective who say they took another dna sample from the body. I have to believe them that the sample was handled in a specific manner. And i have to believe the lab tech that ran the specific sample and compared it to another specific sample taken from the defendent. All of this is eyewitness testimony. Forget the dNA report. That is not what I am discussing. I am talking about the eyewitness testimony on which I am relying. Thos is how the U.S legal system works. We use testimonial evidence. Most of that is eyewitness some of that is expert witness but you are mistaken to think that we do not rely on eyewitness testimony.

The results of that swab will be evidence, and shown in court, the doctors and technicians testimony are simply background to the lab results.

Yet in recent years every case that was tried on eyewitness testimony alone has been re-examined and without new, physical evidence, the verdicts have been over turned.

Examples https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&sour...ggyMAE&usg=AFQjCNF1SI3DKYhJAe9lmqv7x2K0q9zBbg

 

[Curious George]

The results of that swab will be evidence, and shown in court, the doctors and technicians testimony are simply background to the lab results.

Yet in recent years every case that was tried on eyewitness testimony alone has been re-examined and without new, physical evidence, the verdicts have been over turned.

Examples https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&sour...ggyMAE&usg=AFQjCNF1SI3DKYhJAe9lmqv7x2K0q9zBbg

"Background" but still testimony. Still testimony on which we rely. It is the way our court system works. If you are showing how testimony can be unreliable, I agree. People can always lie. People can always be mistaken. But, testimony is still required and still necessary.

My objection was to the assertion that testimony is not really used legally anymore. It is absolutely used legally. In fact, even the dNA report is just a type of testimony.

Without the proper introduction this would be hearsay, which is generally considered worse than testimony.

You need to take a step back and think about what the purpose of the court is and how that purpose can be achieved. You will not reach that goal without relying on testimony.

 

[ChristineM]

"Background" but still testimony. Still testimony on which we rely. It is the way our court system works. If you are showing how testimony can be unreliable, I agree. People can always lie. People can always be mistaken. But, testimony is still required and still necessary.

My objection was to the assertion that testimony is not really used legally anymore. It is absolutely used legally. In fact, even the dNA report is just a type of testimony.

Without the proper introduction this would be hearsay, which is generally considered worse than testimony.

You need to take a step back and think about what the purpose of the court is and how that purpose can be achieved. You will not reach that goal without relying on testimony.

Please go back and tread my posts, my statement was the eyewitness testimony is rarely accepted in court without additional evidence.

I have provided several links and citations to validate my statement.

You have provided nothing but foot stomping incredulity and irrelevant diversions.

So if anyone should be tasking a step back, the prime suspect should be you.

 

[DavidFirth]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

Each person has his/her own standards. We don't all believe the same person (people). Plus none of us are foolproof, we can all be fooled.

 

[Curious George]

Please go back and tread my posts, my statement was the eyewitness testimony is rarely accepted in court without additional evidence.

I have provided several links and citations to validate my statement.

You have provided nothing but foot stomping incredulity and irrelevant diversions.

So if anyone should be tasking a step back, the prime suspect should be you.

This isn't something for which you need "evidence." You can literally use logic to understand. The way our court systems work "eye-witness" testimony is necessary.
Can it be erroneous? Yes. But it is necessary. I am happy to walk you through understanding. I am also happy to provide you with "evidence" when it is necessary. Would you like me to provide you with court rules regarding hearsay for instance?

There is no feet stamping. I think I have been clear. I imagine what you are missing is understanding about how the court system works. I could see how this could be a barrier to seeing my point.

Anyway, try rereading my posts. Let me know on exactly what you are still confused.

Cheers

 

[DavidFirth]

Please go back and tread my posts, my statement was the eyewitness testimony is rarely accepted in court without additional evidence.

Not when it's your word against a cop's. Especially concerning whether or not you're guilty of a traffic offense.

 

[ChristineM]

This isn't something for which you need "evidence." You can literally use logic to understand. The way our court systems work "eye-witness" testimony is necessary.
Can it be erroneous? Yes. But it is necessary. I am happy to walk you through understanding. I am also happy to provide you with "evidence" when it is necessary. Would you like me to provide you with court rules regarding hearsay for instance?

There is no feet stamping. I think I have been clear. I imagine what you are missing is understanding about how the court system works. I could see how this could be a barrier to seeing my point.

Anyway, try rereading my posts. Let me know on exactly what you are still confused.

Cheers

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

Logic has nothing to do with eyewitnesses testimony.

Still i have provided evidence, You claim to be able to provide evidence, I'll wait to see if it is valid contention to the multiple lines of evidence i have supplied

 

[ChristineM]

Not when it's your word against a cop's. Especially concerning whether or not you're guilty of a traffic offense.

Two cops, one validates the other, or camera evidence. A single cop would now have a very hard time in court, a good lawyer would rip him/her to pieces.