The ULTIMATE expression of ignorance -- "Pics or it didn't happen", page 19

reply to post by Visiting ESB

Cases aren't won on testimony alone, in fact most lawyers and courts find testimony alone not 100% credible.

While the phrase "pics or it didn't happen" is insulting to the witness you can't fault people for wanting evidence.

I'm a scientist to me what is more important is empirical evidence.
That's not to say testimony doesn't go a long way, but for me testimony can only get you 48%-51% of the way to making a claim.
I hold everyone to that standard even myself.
I've experienced things I can't provide evidence for and as such I don't mind if someone claims bollocks on what I'm saying.

In my experience the majority of "pics or it didn't happen" occurs when the OP is dodging direct questions, or whining that no one is taking them seriously.
I'm not counting the knee jerk "pics or it didn't happen" annoying posts before the OP even has a chance to respond to the first line of questions, I'm talking after that when they become evasive.

Telling people they can't ask for empirical evidence is even more insulting than not trusting someones testimony alone.
Everyone should be held to the same standard and if you can't provide empirical evidence your claims are only conjecture or anecdotal.
Posters shouldn't be insulted for not being believed on their testimony alone.
People lie, they see things that aren't there, their minds fill in gaps.

You mention courts and the credibility of witnesses and than bash people questioning their rights to have doubts in testimony.
The fact is credibility can't be established just from one anecdote.
It needs to be built up, and when an OP dodges questions or whines their credibility goes down plain and simple.

There is nothing wrong with questioning an OP and making them back up their claims with more explanations or evidence.
A court won't take pure evidence alone it's weighed with all the other testimony and all the evidence.
Singular testimony holds very little weight in court, it's cumulative.

All that said I'm willing to give posters the benefit of the doubt and some can convince me of even more, but one anecdote alone will only get me to around the 50% belief.
That will go up or down based on further questioning.

I think every topic should be approached with the goal to put as many holes in the account as possible and then if the OP can fill those holes back up their case as it were gains more credibility.
Questioning each other with a critical mind isn't insulting, but asking us not to question them and claiming that said questioning is ignorance is insulting.

I apply this same rubric to myself, I don't have evidence for some of my experiences that I have related here, and if someone questions them that's fine with me.
If you are going to post on ATS you should welcome questions and people trying to prove you wrong, because in the scientific world the same thing is done.
Any thing that stands up to questions and survives even just a little bit is that much stronger for it.