Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
What a dumbass Murray is:
| Quote | | In a courtroom, for example, the entire case depends on testimony, even when there is physical evidence, because the jury relies upon the testimony of those that produce and explain what the physical evidence is, how it is relevant, and explains why it is important to the case. Unless the jurors are swabbing cheeks and conducting DNA tests themselves, the DNA evidence is in principle nothing more than the testimony of an expert witness. The jurors have no means of ascertaining the DNA “facts” for themselves; they entirely rely upon the testimony of what they assume to be a highly credible witness. |
No, in principle DNA is is anything but the testimony of an expert witness. That's why it's important. True, it has to be reported to others, ideally by experts with integrity (a potential weak link, and lying experts have perverted the use of DNA evidence), but its value is in part that it doesn't depend upon eyewitnesses, who are of value but often get things wrong.
And of course just any testimony isn't even allowed in court. No more witchfinder testimony, witnesses who were hypnotized and interrogated about the matter are disallowed, idiot "expert testimony" isn't allowed, and psychic drivel that supposedly relates to the case isn't allowed. Pseudoscience isn't considered to be evidence, IOW, and basically, no one cares about your religious experience
Essentially, not all testimony is considered to be evidence, especially if it involves phenomena not corroborated by non-testimonial evidence (notwithstanding the fact that it has to be reported by someone). Salem kind of put a damper on that.
Glen Davidson
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
