What are the standards for evidence?

[Curious George]

Actually your definition, my statement was that i doubted you are a strong atheist [ as you claimed ]

I have already said, the us anything only includes 5% of the world population. Why are you basing you claim on such a small sample?

And still, my multiple links show that eye witness testimony cannot be trusted and is being repealed in every case of conviction on eye witness testimony alone.

Hmm, my words:

"If that is how you define strong atheist, then I am by your definition a strong atheist."

How exactly is it my definition if you define it that way?

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

I have already said, the us anything only includes 5% of the world population. Why are you basing you claim on such a small sample?

Well that is a system which I am familiar. I would be surprised if other systems did not rely on eye-witness testimony as well, but I can cross that bridge when we get there. Right now the focus is on the U.S. legal system. Once we agree that the U.S. system necessarily relies on eye-witness testimony, we can move to other systems.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

Because it is the only exception that doesn't rely on eye-witness testimony and it is still testimony, subject to the most of the same problems as eye-witness testimony. Ultimately, it is the only evidence that is not reliant on eye-witness testimony.

No problems (discounting human error or deliberate tempering) with physical evidence explained by expert witness.

On the other hand, eye witness testimony has been proven unreliable and untrustworthy

 

[Curious George]

And still, my multiple links show that eye witness testimony cannot be trusted and is being repealed in every case of conviction on eye witness testimony alone.

Your links do not show that eye-witness testimony cannot be trusted. Ypur links show that eye-witness testimony can be mistaken or pejured. That something can be wrong does not mean that it cannot be trusted.

For instance, if I come up with examples of things taught in schools that were either mistakes or lies, would you conclude that all things taught in school cannot be trusted? What if I found scientific studies that were mistaken or involved false data, would you say all scientific studies cannot be trusted? You seem to go for sweeping generalizations a lot. You are aware that they are fallacious?

That some eye-witness testimony has been mistaken or perjured is not reason to conclude all eye-witness testimony cannot be trusted.

 

[ChristineM]

Hmm, my words:

"If that is how you define strong atheist, then I am by your definition a strong atheist."

How exactly is it my definition if you define it that way?

Cheers

Hmmm your words

Except i am not religiously bent. I am what is referred to as a strong atheist

 

[Curious George]

No problems (discounting human error or deliberate tempering) with physical evidence explained by expert witness.

On the other hand, eye witness testimony has been proven unreliable and untrustworthy

I really want you to think through how you are going to use "physical evidence" without relying on eye-witness testimony.

 

[Curious George]

Hmmm your words

To which you replied that you doubt the strong portion, to which I replied if...

It would be your definition. Try to follow. I thought you freely admit when you are wrong.

I can break it down further if you would like?

 

[ChristineM]

Well that is a system which I am familiar. I would be surprised if other systems did not rely on eye-witness testimony as well, but I can cross that bridge when we get there. Right now the focus is on the U.S. legal system. Once we agree that the U.S. system necessarily relies on eye-witness testimony, we can move to other systems.

Cheers

No, the focus is on "What are the standards for evidence?"

In particular, eye witness testimony.

No mention on your little village

You will also note that my links describing the legal validity, failure of and psychological testing if eye witness testimony are mostly, but not exclusively us findings

 

[Curious George]

No, the focus is on "What are the standards for evidence?"

In particular, eye witness testimony.

No mention on your little village

You will also note that my links describing the legal validity, failure of and psychological testing if eye witness testimony are mostly, but not exclusively us findings

Ok so when we clear up your misconceptions of U.S. law we can work on your misconceptions regarding the other little villages. One step at a time.

 

[ChristineM]

I really want you to think through how you are going to use "physical evidence" without relying on eye-witness testimony.

I really want you to think of eye witness testimony without physical evidence. Which is what i am talking about, not about physical evidence.

With physical evidence there is a source to validate the eye witness.

Without physical evidence all you have is the word of one person who may or may not (for whatever reason) be speaking truth.

 

[ChristineM]

To which you replied that you doubt the strong portion, to which I replied if...

It would be your definition. Try to follow. I thought you freely admit when you are wrong.

I can break it down further if you would like?

Yes in know what you replied, i also know +and quoted) your original statement on the matter. Your definition, not mine so stop sloping your shoulders hoping the smelly stuff will fall off

 

[ChristineM]

Ok so when we clear up your misconceptions of U.S. law we can work on your misconceptions regarding the other little villages. One step at a time.

Misconceptions? And still my links have not been refuted. Got ya, you want people to take your word under threat of adf hominem and hyperbole without providing anything but bs and babble to basck you up.

 

[Curious George]

Yes in know what you replied, i also know +and quoted) your original statement on the matter. Your definition, not mine so stop sloping your shoulders hoping the smelly stuff will fall off

Let us review. I said I was a strong atheist. It would be using my interpretation of others definition or my definition to make this claim.

You questioned the strong asjective.

I said that if you define strong atheist as...then i am by your definition a strong atheist.

You then said it wasnt your definition.

The comment to which you had replied was using an if-then statement. Saying if your definition is for x is y, than I am x.

So, if your definintion is claiming no gods exist, then by YOUR definition, I am a strong atheist.

Really, I do not wish to belabor this point too much, but this would be by your definition. It is quite simple and follows logically. My claim that I was a strong atheist prior to your questioning the strong adjective does not impact the rest of the conversation where you were wrong again.

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

Misconceptions? And still my links have not been refuted. Got ya, you want people to take your word under threat of adf hominem and hyperbole without providing anything but bs and babble to basck you up.

No. I want people to think through what they say. The concept does not require a source. It logically follows: how does the jury see the murder weapon, how do they come to learn about the finger prints, or powder burns. You realize that every bit of evidence excepting expert testimony relies on eye-witness testimony.

That is how it works.

 

[ChristineM]

Let us review. I said I was a strong atheist. It would be using my interpretation of others definition or my definition to make this claim.

You questioned the strong asjective.

I said that if you define strong atheist as...then i am by your definition a strong atheist.

You then said it wasnt your definition.

The comment to which you had replied was using an if-then statement. Saying if your definition is for x is y, than I am x.

So, if your definintion is claiming no gods exist, then by YOUR definition, I am a strong atheist.

Really, I do not wish to belabor this point too much, but this would be by your definition. It is quite simple and follows logically. My claim that I was a strong atheist prior to your questioning the strong adjective does not impact the rest of the conversation where you were wrong again.

Cheers

You said you were a strong atheist

I questioned it

You said i was defining strong atheist... Wrong i was questioning your claim based on the content of your posts

All the rest is fluff

 

[ChristineM]

No. I want people to think through what they say. The concept does not require a source. It logically follows: how does the jury see the murder weapon, how do they come to learn about the finger prints, or powder burns. You realize that every bit of evidence excepting expert testimony relies on eye-witness testimony.

That is how it works.

The murder weapon is physical evidence

We are not talking physical evidence but eye witness testimony sans physical evidence

We can go round and round this point as often as you like but the moment you introduce physical evidence your argument fails.

 

[Curious George]

You said you were a strong atheist

I questioned it

You said i was defining strong atheist... Wrong i was questioning your claim based on the content of your posts

All the rest is fluff

Wrong, I said if you define strong atheist as x, then by your definition I am a strong atheist.

Reread what was written.

 

[Curious George]

The murder weapon is physical evidence

We are not talking physical evidence but eye witness testimony sans physical evidence

We can go round and round this point as often as you like but the moment you introduce physical evidence your argument fails.

Yes, it is eye witness testimony that said physical evidence was found and is physical evidence. This is eye witness testimony without more.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong, I said if you define strong atheist as x, then by your definition I am a strong atheist.

Reread what was written.

I am not defining anything here, you are imposing your belief on me and claiming it as my definition.

As you seem to do very often. Sorry your bully tactics won't work on me.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, it is eye witness testimony that said physical evidence was found and is physical evidence. This is eye witness testimony without more.

Once again, and for the last time, we are not discussing physical evidence.

What is so hard to understand? We are discussing eyewitness testimony sans (without) physical evidence.

I.e. convictions made purely on the say so on one person. "Yes your honour, i saw that man in the dock pull the trigger"