Neil deGrasse Tyson: We Might Be Living In Higher Dimensions…But Our Senses Can’t Tell Yet.
One of the things we know from research in pyschology is that one of the lowest forms of evidence you can possibly invoke is eye witness testimony. This is odd, because it is one of the highest forms in a court of law."
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I wanted to title this one: Is Neil deGrasse Tyson a Scientist, Philosopher, or Gone Crazy?!
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
440 visitors
Mr. Tyson deals with several questions and answers on life after death, multiverses, and higher thinking lifeforms! Plus more! Personally, I find his comments about information flowing through our senses of insignificant value, both curious and disturbing!
My desirable title is provocative, I know.
He is most definitely a scientist, but the people on the edge of any form of study always have an element of philosophy in their work because they have ideas that cannot yet be proven by current technology.
In the opening three through four minutes of the video above, Mr. Tyson gives some definitions for objective and subjective (personal) truths. It is interesting in how Mr. Tyson chooses to map this:
Objective truth ~ "is the kind of truth that science discovers."
Subjective truth ~ "is a kind of truth that states something like, 'Jesus is my Savior.'"
Let me briefly spotlight Mr. Tyson's definition for subjective truth, is it a 'lower form" of truth (like he feels about eyewitness testimony)?
All "truth" is subjective.
Hi Krishna! I'd, we'd, love you to elaborate.
Not sure which part is curious and which part is disturbing.
Nothing unusual from my perspective.
In the opening of the video above, Mr. Tyson says words to the effect that microscopes and telescopes are no accident in being tools to present data, which is true. However, if eye-witness testimony is, and I quote Mr. Tyson: "One of the lowest form of testimony you can invoke." I could point out the eye is the only part of the body which a microscope and telescope uses as its "witness"!
Here is the difference:
Eye witness testimony is weak because a) as time goes on our memories change and b) our eyes sometimes deceive us - we often see what we expect to see and often miss important details.
That is why science does not rely upon the scientist [1] - it relies upon the evidence [2]. It does not matter that a scientist claims [1] to have found a new particle. What matters is the evidence - the ability to recreate the experiment with the same results [2]. The reliable recreation of the experiment [2] is what matters - not what the scientist claims [1] (not the eye-witness testimony).
I fully understand and accept the scientific method. I am scrutinizing a point Mr. Tyson has declared.
In a true sense, above your 1:1 and 1:2 are both eye-witnesses. Yes, really. What is different between these two activities is repeatability (uniformity). Testimony is the same.
I do understand what Mr. Tyson's point! Your [1] and [2] is an excellent point.
I am concerned that Mr. Tyson's conclusion: "One of the lowest forms of evidence you can possibly invoke is eye witness testimony.This is odd, because it is one of the highest forms in a court of law." — is worded accurately. Clearly, it is not explained completely. Perhaps, his statement is too encompassing, as he draws other outside disciplines (that is, law and religion) into it.
I think, in context, it is not only worded accurately but is properly explained. I wouldn't think any court would present blood sample evidence as "eye witness" evidence even though it may have been examined using a microscope. Of course "eye witness testimony" in this context was meant to refer to something only a select few "eyewitnesses" experienced, not something that is visible to anyone with the technology to verify it such as a telescope or a microscope. We don't consider the belief in germs to be based on "eyewitness" testimony, anyone who wants to can use a microscope to explore their world and see them first hand can, we don't have to just take someone's word for it because they saw it once but can't repeat the phenomenon.
The question of why we put so much stock in eyewitness testimony when its proven extremely unreliable was the only logical way one could take his statement. To try and use that to make a statement seemingly casting doubt on scientific evidence simply because "eyes" are used in gathering the scientific data is simply ridiculous.
Not sure why this is still a problem for you.
Human beings necessarily rely upon our senses. The fact that we use our eyes in the flawed capture of information such as with eyewitness testimony of a split-second traffic accident and that we use our eyes while examining the results of a carefully conducted repeat of an experiment does not make the two equivalent. It is not our eyes (the common factor) that matter, it is the process.
I am confident that Dr. Tyson was reflecting the well established principle in science that the opinion or recall of an individual scientist is meaningless - all that matters is the ability to recreate a claim.
I think you might be searching for a flaw in Dr Tyson's reasoning. Maybe over-parsing - reading too much into his words?
Not really. Actually, I comprehend his point. And, I have offered my own on it.
I have no idea then what is bothering you about it so I have nothing else to offer.
Easy for you to state. Moreover, you did a better job of making clear the 'case' for unreliability of eye-witness testimony as SCIENTIFIC evidence than he does early on! Granted, he is before a 'friendly" and likely familiar audience.
To be fair as I move along now, Mr. Tyson does fix his statement at 7:00 minutes into the video! There he makes clear he is talking about scientific evidence. And at 7:57 he mentions that eye witness testimony is 'not wrong,' though I gather still a low form of testimony.
I singled this out for an obvious reason: 1. Mr. Tyson is playing around the edges of God. 2. The unquestionable logic and reasoning used in courts methodology is "dragged" into this.
I repeat, I get Mr. Tyson's point! However, muddled with his animated personality. That "muddling" will come up again as he continues this discussion. That is, as Episste, pointed out in @2, he will lapse into philosophic 'talk.' Where he will be observed making statements without use of the scientific method or evidence.
Overall, this is a good Q & A with plenty "gems" to digest/discuss!
Yes. There is that. There is mounting evidence you present this attitude frequently on my topics of discussion. (Dryly.)
It is not an 'attitude' to note that one has nothing else to offer on a point.
Perhaps the reliability of eye witness testimony varies from observer to observer?
[jrEmbed module="jrYouTube" youtube_id="llLVk2fqylA"
Really informative video (I watched it in entirety). However I think this trouble with eyewitness testimony springs up more from perspectives (from observer to observer) than illusions, which can be elaborate to stage.
In Dr. Tyson's case, he definitely takes this a step farther through stating truth is otherwise or best established using the scientific method (data, charts, repeatability, etceteras). Materials such as you can sometime see in a court case, but not always used in discovering "whodunit" in a court setting.
Very interesting video.
Moving on now. Mr. Tyson does a nice job (@ 2:00) of illustrating why the scientific community does not accept religious statements of faith, in my opinion. NOTE: His claim of scientific truth being objective truth is QUITE interesting and true.
Here he is speaking in the scientific-sense alone and not the moral sense? (Atheist scientists believe moral truths to be relative truths.) Anyone can help clarify this for me?
Not Dr. Tyson?
But yes I agree, he explained the importance of verifiable evidence quite well. Faith (belief sans solid evidence) is meaningless in the scientific method. But you knew that a long time ago so why is this noteworthy?
Yes, Dr. Tyson. No disrespect intended.
When someone does something well, we all should say so. So I did!
Take what Tyson calls a one dimensional figure (a line) and move it to either side. You now have a two dimensional figure (original length plus width). Take that two dimensional figure and move it up or down. You now have three dimensions , length width and depth. Take those three dimensions, and move them through space. You have demonstrated the fourth dimension time. Hold a pen (three dimensional) in your hand and pass it in front of your body from one side to the other. The path that pen took as it moved across your body represents time. (It took two seconds to complete that path), the fourth dimension. Take those four dimensions and move them through space and you have .....? We cannot experience that movement, although it is seemingly well within the realm of likelihood. But we are beings that can only recognize four dimensions. Oh well.
Welcome John Russell!
Space-time. The fourth dimension, yes?
No, what you proved is that in three dimensional space it took 2 seconds to move that pen from point A to point B that does not prove you conquered the fourth dimension of time. To conquer the fourth dimension that pen had to be at every single point in three dimensional space at the same time.
Welcome, bccrane!
Although I appreciate the effort of Tyson in making science comprehensible for non scientists, I feel like he isn't quite up to the guy who did it before him, Carl Sagan. I could listen to Sagan for hours. I get tired of Tyson after a while.
When I was younger, I definitely did not take stock of all the nuances in Dr. Sagan's work. I watched the Cosmos series a bit as a form of learning, but without any naturalist 'bent.'
By the time, Dr. Tyson's, Cosmos: A Space Odyssey series aired, I was versed in the knowledge that naturalists were doing much more than simply educating the public about science. There was a serious 'steering' away from notions of God intersecting the series.
(Maybe that was the case with Dr. Sagan too. If so, I never caught on!)
When Dr. Tyson is speculating about other and escalating up to 10 dimensions, it strikes me that, Dr. Tyson is talking about other unknown realms (of existence). is this what you visualize in your minds-eye? (Though, he presents no scientific evidence of such places.)
Still, if other realms. . . .
Yeah, he was engaging in speculation.
He was also trying to give people an idea on how to imagine higher dimensions by showing how lower dimensions are a projection of a higher-dimensioned reality.
Also note that superstring theory (purely as a mathematical necessity) includes 10 dimensions but these dimensions are within (lower than) our four dimensional world. That is, they are envisioned as curled up. To visualize, imagine every line (a single dimensional object) actually has multiple dimensions that are too small for us to see. This is non-intuitive stuff, but much of science nowadays is non- (and often counter-) intuitive.
Dr. Tyson is talking about "higher dimensions" too - in the same section of the video. I am going through this in my own 'stages.' —Taking my time.
You are welcome to offer something to discuss from the video without waiting for me.
I know, I addressed that in my second sentence:
I added emphasis. No problem!
For the record is speculation a good or bad activity? Or, is speculation a not good activity when an atheist determine believers are doing it?
Speculation is a critical part of scientific research.
( There is more to say, but I am interested to see your response leaving it there. )
Speculation is a good activity all-around. Got it. Say on, I'm listening. . . .
You did not offer any information.
The key to speculation is to recognize where it has value and where that value ceases.
Speculation is fantastic for thinking outside of the box - for imagining things that possibly have never been imagined before. Scientists will engage in speculation during the formation of hypotheses. They observe, wonder and basically guess (intelligent guess, but ...) potential explanations for what they have observed.
That is all good.
But speculation is recognized as simply intelligent guesses, possibilities. Speculation is not fact nor is it even probability. And it certainly is nowhere near truth - barring a lucky guess of course.
( Now do you have something to say? )
Only that I bring up speculation, because NT atheists often accuse believers of holding to a wildly "speculative" faith in God without any value.
The fact is everybody speculates. That is all.
Because taking speculation into belief goes past the point where the value of speculation ends.
Belief (in anything) based simply on speculation is unfounded.
One could speculate that Martians exist and live under the surface of the planet. Do you see how that a belief of Martian life is not supported by the speculation? That something substantially more than 'there might be Martians that have eluded us since they live beneath the surface' is needed. The speculation opens our minds to the possibility, but hard evidence is required for justified belief.
You argue as though faith (in God) is purely speculation without foundation. By the way, speculation is not the equivalent of belief in this manner. Belief, in this case, is a point of view-reasoned-principled.
That scientific-atheists seek after scientific research to establish scientific conjectures, theories, and facts does not mean principles of faith by default is discredited. Scientists strive after truths in nature, and believers strive primarily after spiritual truths.
What is spiritual works in the life of a believer, in the process bringing forth results.
You can always explain the foundation to people. I think it is safe to say that every atheist (and beyond even) could not offer a credible foundation for religious beliefs (other than the most abstract). If you could provide such a foundation it would be brilliant.
Evidence is the critical thing. Speculation is not supported by evidence - it is simply seeded by observation.
True. But claiming principles of faith have value does not mean they do. Science must make its case. Religion should as well. But what we see from religion are simply claims.
One can strive for something, but unless it can be demonstrated in terms that other human beings can understand and validate, it is at the very best merely 'eyewitness' testimony.
Religion makes many people feel good. No doubt about it. It brings comfort.
There is nothing "merely" about it. Scientific-atheists have a discipline; People of Faith have a discipline. I will not offer any apology (even if I could) for God not submitting to scientific testing.
Fact: Scientific-atheists rely on natural explanations only. Is this correct? Informed People of Faith do not doubt proven science, but we follow revelation also.
One can have all the discipline a human being can muster, but without evidence the discipline is meaningless. Objective knowledge is always, ultimately, a product of evidence.
Nobody asked you to.
Yes, (and you know this already) only natural reality is accessible to human beings. Anything outside of natural reality (i.e. supernatural) is by definition beyond our senses (even if augmented with natural tools). 'Supernatural' is a concept (as is 'nothing') that has yet to be shown to actually exist.
Pretty sure everyone knows that. Although you recognize there are quite a few theists who deny science such as evolution. They hold that the Bible overrules the findings of science. What do you think of that?
What do i think about it?
I think you can have "fanatics" in every endeavor. But, we do not have to spend our time discussing fanaticism of either stripe.
Scientific-atheists are advocates of scientific truths and concepts alone. It is what such people willingly accept alone.
It is not the only existing truths mankind can muster. Thus, you can argue your POV all you wish; however, truth is not narrowed to your worldview!
Why is my worldview in question? I thought this was about Dr. Tyson.
Thing is, you presume that there is a narrowing going on. Following the evidence to where it leads and resisting the temptation to engage in wishful thinking or believe speculative ideas as truth is what is going on.
People think they have discovered 'truths' all the time. The Heaven's Gate cult believed that a spaceship to heaven was coming and to get on board they had to don tennis shoes and take poison. That clearly was not truth but those believers were absolutely convinced (as evidenced by their suicides) that it was.
If 'truth' cannot be demonstrated one should be skeptical.
I am not sure what type of group worldview Heaven's Gate held. Heaven's Gate's victims are an example of error—not truth. For example, there are many "believers" who never lapse into fanaticism, but you always manage to single out "kooks" for your whataboutisms.
Jesus warned:
Matthew 24 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
So false prophets are out and about in the world. Such people do not have any truth which they do not mangle to their own advantage.
I take it you did not understand my point since all you did was complain about the clarifying example.
... and go personal again
"We" are interacting together. "You" and some description of your ideas may be par for the course. You do find the "kooks" to represent people of faith, why not point out some of the folks who epitomize people of faith?
I'm just saying.I am focused on my article. Do not personalize any of this.
Notice that I do not care about your exaggerated "facepalm" emoticon being deployed in my direction. We are interacting and communicating. That is how I see it!
I will wait until you have a point to make.
No problem, I like it.
@ 21:35 in the video above; Dr. Tyson discusses proving a negative. (Traces of Dr. Anthony Flew there.)
The key word is 'prove'. Demonstrate does not mean prove. Extremely high confidence is not the same as proof.
Take that up with Dr. Tyson @ 21:35! Shifting out words is in a clever wordplay, won't lessen the impact of this meaning he is pouring into his statement: 'Scientists kind of prove a negative all the time."
What are you talking about now? Are you accusing me of wordplay ... dishonesty?
Do you think Dr. Tyson meant that science literally PROVES something in the sense of 100% certainty?? Do you actually presume that Dr. Tyson is unaware of what science does and its logical limits??
First of all, what does 'kind of prove' typically mean? You cannot get accurate meaning if you jump on a single word and ignore the concept of the contextual sentence (or, in this case, the story).
Second, did you pay any attention to his bear example?
Follow the evidence to where it leads. Much better than jumping to a conclusion and then trying to justify same.
Dr. Tyson shifted his language in the video from "prove," or "proof," to "demonstration." You listened to it, yes? I am not Dr. Tyson's "Whisperer."
I accuse you of nothing. This is not about you personally.
Dr. Tyson is highly qualified to choose his words appropriately and accordingly—as you are performing now on his behalf! I am simply pointing out his words.
Those are Dr. Tyson's words. The meaning is crystal clear. Dr. Tyson says there is a process to prove a negative. So, NT atheists can accept his esteem statement on this matter or continue to try to say he did not mean what he has said!
And, for the record, you have none of this show of patience with informed believers' when we clarify meaning of statements.
Ever consider the possibility that you are overly parsing words? Looking too hard for hidden meaning that simply is not there?
There you go again, taking things personal.
I accept none of this transference onto myself. I provided Dr. Tyson's words verbatim. Deal with the words—do not attempt to redirect to me. I will have none of that.
That said, you should listen with less bias of your own. Perhaps, it is scientific-atheists confirming one another's words that you can apply full context to what Dr. Tyson means rather than what he actually says. I have no problem with this, incidentally.
I simply point out his spoken words. He said it! As far as his (bear) example goes. I am cool with it. Does not change the statement, nevertheless:
I really do not care if you insist on finding fault with Dr. Tyson that is clearly not there. He will never know and the only person negatively affected is you. You will incorporate into your base of knowledge the false fact that a renowned scientist claims that science PROVES. That makes your world knowledge less accurate. But that is your choice and indeed your own fault. So there you go.
This was interesting to watch though.
I find no fault as you state. I simply point out his spoken words. He said it! As far as his (bear) example goes. I am cool with it. Does not change the statement, nevertheless.
This has been interesting. Glad you enjoyed it too!
Well I think you know that you did quite a bit more than that. You fabricated a demonstrably false interpretation on those words. One that makes no logical sense. But, as noted, only you are affected. I suspect if Dr. Tyson knew of your insistence that he claimed in his bear story that science PROVES he would chuckle. No doubt it would not be the first time someone ignored his point and instead tried desperately to fabricate a meaningless 'gotcha'.
There you go again. . . . Dr. Tyson words are available for anyone to listen to in the video.
That's all.
( Nobody likely cares. I am pretty sure anyone who reads this knows this is a silly non issue. )
Do not attempt to trash this article/thread!
Do not become overly-emotional, rude, and attacking, please. I have reasons to believe, we are all intelligent adults here.
Mere disagreement is 'emotional' / 'rude' and 'trashing' an article? This is too ridiculous - I will leave you to discuss your seed with yourself.
Well, I think you know that you did quite a bit more than that TiG! Next, you might tell me Dr. Tyson needs interpretation. Better to let this esteem scientist speak for himself!
Well, I have reached the end of the video with my questions and comments.
I like what Dr. Tyson says @ 24:00 in the video above as he ponders if mankind has the mental wherewithal to understand all the knowledge in this universe. As an aside, it kind of points out a question:
How can a purposeless and unintelligent universe outsmart its smartest (known to us) inhabitants?
We do not understand all there is to know about a grain of sand. Did the grain of sand outsmart us?
Is any grain of sand, smart?
The universe contains all the grains of sand and mankind too. How smart is that?!
I see you are not going to answer the question.
Irony.
You're not really asking that seriously are you? What Dr. Tyson is saying isn't that the universe is so smart we may never understand it, he's saying that there is simply so much to know he questions whether humans will have the mental capability to understand it all. That isn't the same as saying the universe has "outsmarted" us.
It would be monumentally arrogant to imagine we're the smartest beings in the universe, just as it is monumentally arrogant to believe we know who and what created everything in the universe and what that creator wants for us based on nothing but other ancient humans claims they were contacted by such a being and given divine knowledge which often contradicts what we've discovered about our planet and universe.
Your question is just using the same illogic of "complexity in nature requires a more complex designer to exist". What you're implying is that because the universe is complex and hard to understand, that must mean there's something smarter out there that is able to make sense of it all. But what you forget is that by using this logical fallacy to justify a more complex creator, you have presented yourself with another more difficult question to answer, where did the even more complex designer come from?
Please stop with this defensive posture. We should be able to discuss these matters together like adults without getting 'slammed'!
You wrote: "[Dr. Tyson] is saying that there is simply so much to know he questions whether humans will have the mental capability to understand it all."
DP: What is to know? —Knowledge.
How is a purposeless and unintelligent universe 'issuing forth' purposeful and intelligent species? Moreover, Dr. Tyson thinks there is more than our intellect out there somewhere. Now, his words are taking us back in time!
Knowledge is not synonymous with intelligence. There is almost an unlimited amount of facts you can learn about rocks, does that make a rock intelligent? There is an almost unlimited amount of facts you can learn about our universe, does that make our universe intelligent?
Knowledge: noun - facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Intelligence: noun - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
So while the universe is full of knowable facts, it has shown ZERO ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, other than that exhibited by living creatures on our planet. So as far as we know, we are the most intelligent life in the universe, but it would just be ridiculously ignorant and arrogant to claim we must be the pinnacle of life or intelligence considering the size of the universe and the relatively microscopic amount of it we've actually examined in any detail.
Where is your evidence of other life? Is this speculation?
While you imagine other life in the universe because of our intellect and its vastness, why is it so hard to speculate that a substance able to congeal to make all these realities of ours possible, is itself behind intelligent?
Someone might consider that bias in some form, shape or fashion. Open the mind.
I didn't say I know there are other forms of life out there, I said as far as we know, we're it. I tempered that with the fact that what we "know" is so miniscule it would be ridiculous to rule out other life based on that limited knowledge.
"While you imagine other life in the universe because of our intellect and its vastness, why is it so hard to speculate that a substance able to congeal to make all these realities of ours possible, is itself behind intelligent?"
My acceptance of how little we actually know allowing for the possibility of alien life is exactly the same as I feel about the possibility of a divine creator. I have never claimed what some might define as God can't exist, I've always held out that possibility, but I don't believe any of the descriptions and defining characteristics humans have invented over the last several thousands years comes anywhere close to the reality we may someday discover.
Think of it this way. I find it monumentally ignorant and arrogant for someone to claim they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. I also find it monumentally ignorant and arrogant to claim you know there definitely are aliens and claim they are quadruped aliens with bulbous blue heads due to their enlarged brains and they call themselves the "Klackamackans" and they love grape juice and VR video games, all without a shred of evidence, just some accounts from people who say they were contacted by these space beings. Therefore I also find it monumentally ignorant and arrogant for someone to claim they know beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no God. But I also find it monumentally ignorant and arrogant to claim you know there definitely is a God, who God is, his name, his likes, his dislikes, 'his' gender and his supposed demands of mankind without a shred of evidence, just some accounts from people who say they were contacted by said divine beings.
So the only ones exhibiting immobile bias are those who claim they "know" something they can't prove, whether it's the existence or the non-existence of an intelligent creator being. The only ones being reasonable are those who accept that one may or may not exist, but recognizes that at the moment it's impossible to make a fact based judgment because we lack the evidence to prove either conclusion. The only reasonable and logical position to take is one of open minded skepticism. Accept that anything is possible, but don't just believe anything without evidence for you will assuredly be led astray. Speculation is just mental masturbation, it might be fun to do sometimes but for the logical, it won't ever actually grow into a full fledged belief without bumping ugly's with physical evidence and facts.
Personally, I am disappointed that God is a personal God—for now. Changing lives one at a time. I have a litany of things in life that disappoint me. I am disappointed when one chooses to come here just to be nasty, and pick fights just for the hell of it.
Fine. While you are waiting on scientific evidence and research on God and the supernatural, you should "capture and control" your opinions of People of Faith.
It is clear to me one neither knows enough about what informed People of Faith do or believe (despite past proximity and associations) or one gets off "speculatin'" about one's lack of involvement while exhibiting "hanger-on" tendencies.
According to your words, you are skeptic. As a consequence, you are not qualified to speak about "God-concepts." You simply should listen more until such time as you can add something of value and consideration to the discussion.
For the record, some of us in this room just settled where we stand: Speculation is a good thing, maybe as fine as masturbation! /s
Ah, I see. So you don't really want to have a debate with a skeptic, you want someone you'd define as "open minded" aka "gullible" who hasn't made their mind up yet about religion that you can indoctrinate with your personal brand of faith. You're not actually wanting to know what I believe, you're dying to try and fill me with what you believe and when you realized that's not possible because you're debating someone who was a pastor for thirty years and has read the bible cover to cover multiple times and has studied other faiths and has strong opinions and is already "skeptical" of your brand of faith, you tell me I'm "not qualified" to speak on about God-concepts". What a sad cop-out. And by the way, who exactly are you to make that judgment? Am I addressing his holiness the arch-bishop of contemptuous idiocy? Do you believe yourself the right hand of God thus able to cast judgment on we sinners?
You don't want to have discussions with one like me because you know it can only damage your own faith, it's never going to convince me of your beliefs because you know you can't provide the evidence skeptics ask for in order to believe. You're the one holding something you believe to be precious, and you go around showing it to everyone who believes like you do and they all pat you on the back and reinforce your already held belief, telling you of course it must be extremely valuable, but you avoid going to an actual appraiser to show your precious treasure for fear they will tell you it's nothing but a gold painted turd.
A quote from Skeptic Michael Shermer: If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
No projection allowed. This article is not about the Bible (did you notice Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson in its title)?
You can discuss the Bible anytime you wish with me—just open up an article or seed on the Bible and bid me to come hither.
"The evidence skeptics ask for in order to believe." Sorry, I can not provide you with natural research for the supernatural. You should know this by now, though.
If you wish to discuss science and skepticism you can do so right here and now!
Something about Dr. Tyson's quote has been bothering me for several days (on the margins of my mind). Now, I think I know what it is:
Dr. Tyson is comparing a "high quality" standard of eye-witness testimony found in a court of law to a standard body of scientific techniques.
When you look at both standards evenly, it can be clearly seem that both achieve results which are truth. Sometimes, overlapping in order to better serve. Courts of law are not laboratories.
Neither achieves truth. The objective is truth but the degree to which it is approximated varies.
Where do you get the idea that the legal system considers eye-witness testimony to be 'high-quality'?: ( link )
I am going to list a Supreme Court case on this specific matter with two opposing viewpoints: Eye-witness testimon y .
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion .
Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
ASSENT : Justice Ginsburg opining [in part]
C
In urging a broadly applicable due process check on eyewitness identifications, Perry maintains that eyewitness identifications are a uniquely unreliable form of evidence. See Brief for Petitioner 17–22 (citing studies showing that eyewitness misidentifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions); Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 14–17 (describing research indicating that as many as one in three eyewitness identifications is inaccurate) . See also post, at 14–17. We do not doubt either the importance or the fallibility of eyewitness identifications. Indeed, in recognizing that defendants have a constitutional right to counsel at postindictment police lineups, we observed that “the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification.” Wade, 388 U. S., at 228.
We have concluded in other contexts, however, that the potential unreliability of a type of evidence does not alone render its introduction at the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair. See, e.g., Ventris, 556 U. S., at 594, n. (declining to “craft a broa[d] exclusionary rule for uncorroborated statements obtained [from jailhouse snitches],” even though “rewarded informant testimony” may be inherently untrustworthy); Dowling, 493 U. S., at 353 (rejecting argument that the introduction of evidence concerning acquitted conduct is fundamentally unfair because such evidence is “inherently unreliable”). We reach a similar conclusion here: The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.
Our unwillingness to enlarge the domain of due process as Perry and the dissent urge rests, in large part, on our recognition that [1] the jury, not the judge, traditionally determines the reliability of evidence. See supra, at 7. [2] We also take account of other safeguards built into our adversary system that caution juries against placing undue weight on eyewitness testimony of questionable reliability. These protections include the defendant’s [3] Sixth Amendment right to confront the eyewitness. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U. S. 836 , 845 (1990) ( “The central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant.” ). Another is [4] the defendant’s right to the effective assistance of an attorney, who can expose the flaws in the eyewitness’ testimony during cross-examination and focus the jury’s attention on the fallibility of such testimony during opening and closing arguments. [5] Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, 7 likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Telfaire, 469 F. 2d 552, 558–559 (CADC 1972) (per curiam) (D. C. Circuit Model Jury Instructions) ( “If the identification by the witness may have been influenced by the circumstances under which the defendant was presented to him for identification, you should scrutinize the identification with great care. ”). [6] See also Ventris, 556 U. S., at 594, n. (citing jury instructions that informed jurors about the unreliability of uncorroborated jailhouse-informant testimony as a reason to resist a ban on such testimony) ; Dowling, 493 U. S., at 352–353. [7] The constitutional requirement that the government prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt also impedes convictions based on dubious identification evidence.
[ 8] State and federal rules of evidence, moreover, permit trial judges to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact or potential for misleading the jury. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Evid. 403; N. H. Rule Evid. 403 (2011). See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–22 (inquiring whether the standard Perry seeks differs materially from the one set out in Rule 403). [9] In appropriate cases, some States also permit defendants to present expert testimony on the hazards of eyewitness identification evidence. See, e.g., State v. Clopten, 2009 UT 84, A33, 223 P. 3d 1103, 1113 (“We expect . . . that in cases involving eyewitness identification of strangers or near-strangers, trial courts will routinely admit expert testimony [on the dangers of such evidence].”).
Many of the safeguards just noted were at work at Perry’s trial. During her opening statement, Perry’s court-appointed attorney cautioned the jury about the vulnerability of Blandon’s identification. App. 115a (Blandon, “the eyewitness that the State needs you to believe[,] can’t pick [Perry] out of a photo array. How carefully did she really see what was going on? . . . How well could she really see him?”). While cross-examining Blandon and Officer Clay, Perry’s attorney constantly brought up the weaknesses of Blandon’s identification. She highlighted: (1) the significant distance between Blandon’s window and the parking lot, id., at 226a; (2) the lateness of the hour, id., at 225a; (3) the van that partly obstructed Blandon’s view, id., at 226a; (4) Blandon’s concession that she was “so scared [she] really didn’t pay attention” to what Perry was wearing, id., at 233a; (5) Blandon’s inability to describe Perry’s facial features or other identifying marks, id., at 205a, 233a–235a; (6) Blandon’s failure to pick Perry out of a photo array, id., at 235a; and (7) Perry’s position next to a uniformed, gun-bearing police officer at the moment Blandon made her identification, id., at 202a–205a. Perry’s counsel reminded the jury of these frailties during her summation. Id., at 374a–375a (Blandon “wasn’t able to tell you much about who she saw . . . . She couldn’t pick [Perry] out of a lineup, out of a photo array . . . . [Blandon said] [t]hat guy that was with the police officer, that’s who was circling. Again, think about the context with the guns, the uniforms. Powerful, powerful context clues.”).
After closing arguments, the trial court read the jury a lengthy instruction on identification testimony and the factors the jury should consider when evaluating it. Id., at 399a–401a. The court also instructed the jury that the defendant’s [10] guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 390a, 392a, 395a–396a, and specifically cautioned that “one of the things the State must prove [beyond a reasonable doubt] is the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the offense,” id., at 398a–399a.
Given the safeguards generally applicable in criminal trials, protections availed of by the defense in Perry’s case, we hold that the introduction of Blandon’s eyewitness testimony, without a preliminary judicial assessment of its reliability, did not render Perry’s trial fundamentally unfair.
DISSENT : Justice Sotomayor opining [in part]
It would be one thing if the passage of time had cast doubt on the empirical premises of our precedents. But just the opposite has happened. A vast body of scientific literature has reinforced every concern our precedents articulated nearly a half-century ago, though it merits barely a parenthetical mention in the majority opinion. Ante , at 14. Over the past three decades, more than two thousand studies related to eyewitness identification have been published. One state supreme court recently appointed a special master to conduct an exhaustive survey of the current state of the scientific evidence and concluded that “[t]he research . . . is not only extensive,” but “it represents the ‘gold standard in terms of the applicability of social science research to law.’ ” State v. Henderson, 208 N. J. 208, 283, 27 A. 3d 872, 916 (2011). “Experimental methods and findings have been tested and retested, subjected to scientific scrutiny through peer-reviewed journals, evaluated through the lens of meta-analyses, and replicated at times in real-world settings.” Ibid.; see also Schmechel, O’Toole, Easterly, & Loftus, Beyond the Ken? Testing Jurors’ Understanding of Eyewitness Reliability Evidence, 46 Jurimetrics 177, 180 (2006) (noting “nearly unanimous consensus among researchers about the [eyewitness reliability] field’s core findings”).
The empirical evidence demonstrates that eyewitness misidentification is “ ‘the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in this country.’ ” 5 Researchers have found that a staggering 76% of the first 250 convictions overturned due to DNA evidence since 1989 involved eyewitness misidentification. 6 Study after study demonstrates that eyewitness recollections are highly susceptible to distortion by postevent information or social cues; 7 that jurors routinely overestimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications; 8 that jurors place the greatest weight on eyewitness confidence in assessing identifications 9 even though confidence is a poor gauge of accuracy; 10 and that suggestiveness can stem from sources beyond police-orchestrated procedures. 11 The majority today never-theless adopts an artificially narrow conception of the dangers of suggestive identifications at a time when our concerns should have deepened.
Source:
They agree on the point that eyewitness testimony is not high quality.
What point are you trying to make?
Courts have determined eye-witness testimony can be trustworthy and of high-quality when "safeguards" are utilized to protect all involved. Fallibility of eyewitness identification duly noted.
I have pointed out the [10] rationale for why courts can and do accept eyewitness testimony as high quality.
It makes no sense to list [10] relatively "low quality" reasons for accepting eyewitness testimony. Incidentally, the ten reasons outweigh the lesser one or several listed.
TiG, I only present the High Court opinings. Take it or leave it
The safeguards are extra measures to address the problems with eyewitness testimony.
Obviously some eyewitness testimony will be good. The trick (the safeguards) is to pick out the good stuff from a pile of mostly bad.
Are you going to attempt to argue that eyewitness testimony is high quality evidence?
I did not object to anything in these opinions. The opinions clearly show that eyewitness testimony is not high quality.
Why would you waste time asking me this? What do you think? If you are skeptical of eyewitness testimony and judges who govern oversight, who or what do you wish to see in charge - scientists installed on the "Bench"?
Let's not drag this out for extenuation sake.
Michael Shermer: If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
Your references contradict your claim that eyewitness testimony is high quality. Both of the opposing opinions agree on the general problem with eyewitness testimony.
I responded to what you wrote and what you quoted. No need to flame out simply because I did not find your argument convincing.
Have you considered where your are standing with your POV? You support the scientific community alone in the community—deciding everything? Suppose, for an instance, you take the Court's POV. Afterall, they actively deal with these kinds of issue on a repeating basis and have developed approved methods as guides.
J. Ginsburg et al, took the opinion of Dr. Tyson's aforementioned, Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 14–17 (describing research indicating that as many as one in three eyewitness identifications is inaccurate) under advisement in her opinion to confirm eye-witness testimony based on an accumulation of activities to ensure its quality (validity) in the eyes of the law.
My POV is, I do not have anything vested in support or non-support of eye-witness testimony. I present\ what is confirmed in regards to the same. That's it.
That you find my argument 'not convincing' does not present me with anything to strive for, TiG.
POV is irrelevant. You should simply read what the justices wrote and attempt to avoid cherry-picking to get the result you wish.
Correct. Ginsburg recognizes the problem.
Eyewitness evidence is NOT high quality. It is problematic and special measures need to be taken. Sometimes it is good enough to use as credible evidence but for the most part juries should be very critical of eyewitness testimony. We know enough about how our minds work to state with confidence that we are unreliable witnesses when it comes to detail. Not to mention (believe it or not) not every witness is honest - some lie.
You should be objective. In everything!! Best to not read what you want, read what is written. That sort of thing.
Not my problem.
And, additional measures are taken. 'Safeguards' enhance the testimony. In the video Dr. Tyson states,
"One of the things we know from research in psychology is that one of the lowest forms of evidence you can possibly invoke is eye witness testimony. This is odd, because it is one of the highest forms in a court of law. Which disturbs me greatly"
All I will say at this point is courts have incorporated science and eye-witness testimonies into its processes. It should end Dr. Tyson's (and other folks) "disturbances."
Moving along now: Are scientific-Atheist wanting to take over the world's legal systems, too? (Rhetorical question.)
—Nothing is your problem, TiG! Matter of fact: Nothing ever is. Oh, and Ginsburg recognizes the solution, too.
Yes Cal, safeguards are necessary because eyewitness testimony is not high quality.
We know that people are crappy with details (especially given time ~ minutes even). We also know people lie (to 'feel' important, bias against/for the accused, etc.). I am sure this is obvious to most everyone. Why do you stubbornly try to argue - even against your own sources - that eyewitness testimony is high quality? This is just bizarre.
Eye witness testimony can be evidence so it is used. In the past it was the most easily acquired evidence (just think of how much eye witness testimony was used in the Salem Witch trials). It is demonstrably NOT high-quality evidence but is generally better than nothing. This is not a difficult thing to understand. In fact, just read your own quote to understand what I just wrote.
Why do you always turn debate personal?
Why do you use emoticons as a form of expression? For my part I am engaging with your words. None of this is personal from my perspective!
Problem found; problem solved. For more elaboration, yes people have their problems. The eye-witness system is valid because it has checks and balances. Dr. Tyson, heaven forbid anything should ever happen to him where eye-witness testimony is all the evidence to be mustered.
In such a moment of personal need, "disturbance" will be quenched. Of necessity, Tyson' perspective will self-correct.
When you make derogatory negative comments, that is turning a debate personal. Focus on the the content of the argument rather than the person with whom you disagree. That would neatly solve the problem.
We will almost always disagree on religious topics or in Trojan Horse topics such as this where you, in my opinion, are trying to establish a principle that you can then use in a future religious argument. Arguments and counter arguments need not get personal. Totally unnecessary.
Eyewitness testimony being unreliable is not a problem that is solved. Putting forth measures to better weed out bad testimony corroborates Dr. Tyson's point that:
When you post justices opining about the problems with eyewitness testimony (even if one of them believes that in the case in question the particular testimony is good enough) you have highly credible experts supporting Dr. Tyson's comment. It takes no effort to Google credible articles which note the problems with eyewitness testimony. You will be hard pressed to find a credible expert claiming that eyewitness testimony is in-and-of-itself a quality form of evidence:
So, again, I suggest you follow the evidence to where it leads even if you would prefer it lead you elsewhere.
Do not tell me how to discuss issues, TiG! That is getting personal. I have no intention to "parrot" your ideology. BTW, are you aware you are questioning my motives, including in the future? How dare you.
If you prepared to only accept your POV that is okay if you want to be a generic know it all. Nothing personal. However, I will share my POV equally. Moreover, I will probe your views as often as feasible and necessary.
I plan to be persuaded when facts point me toward correction, not so as to satisfy other people's self-interests.
For example. A main reason for the Supreme Court to hear a question regarding eye-witness testimony was a problem was found to exist with delivery of such testimony. The high court listened to the lawyers, took their reports and their concerns under review, then rendered a 8-1 non-partisan decision stating factors exist to remedy the concern. Moreover, those factors existed already in modern courts system of jurisprudence and could be uniformly applied across the country.
In my opinion, the highest court in the U.S. established a precedent in 2011 for eye-witness testimony in PERRY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE decided 2012. Well, ahead of Dr. Tyson's need to make his pronouncement against how courts handle eye-witness testimony.
No, it is not a question . I gave you my conclusion . Very different from a question. Maybe others will believe you when you claim that you have no vested interest in establishing eyewitness testimony as high-quality evidence. If eyewitness testimony were high-quality evidence how would that play into arguments of biblical credibility (since the Bible's greatest claim to credibility is eyewitness testimony ... well .... interpretation of eyewitness testimony)? But, as I noted, that is my opinion. Could be wrong. Doubt it.
My POV is that one should follow the evidence to wherever it leads. Objective analysis - critical thinking. The evidence here leads to the clear conclusion that eyewitness testimony is NOT high quality - just as Dr. Tyson noted.
Plenty of people believe what they want to be true regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof).
Did they establish eyewitness testimony (as a precedent) as high-quality? Link? Quote?
Your articles predate 2011 Supreme Court precedent setting opinion for which some of its criticisms and recommendations were touched upon. Ultimately, it is the court's decision to decide how courts (the legal discipline) functions. Science can play its role in this, but that role is properly limited.
That's all I have to state.
Well, one would think that one would wait until the Bible comes up to shout out: "Ah-ha!" But, instead one gets out ahead of the skis, to use a familiar saying. This is not an article about religion, nevertheless.
Now an agenda is definitely being put forward here: In my opinion, scientific-Atheists are becoming more forceful and insistent that only science can discover truth. No other discipline should matter. They should recede from the world's stage. Thus, by some, there is this pervasive effort to declare other disciplines as pseudosciences. This is not an article about pseudoscience, nevertheless.
My linked sources establish that eyewitness testimony is NOT high quality (and, importantly, why). And, as noted, with a simple Google search anyone can get consistent conclusions from many sources that eyewitness testimony is NOT high quality.
The SCOTUS decision to allow a specific eyewitness testimony did NOT establish the specific eyewitness testimony as high quality much less make such a claim regarding ALL eyewitness testimony. Quite the opposite - clearly - the words are right there in your quote. The SCOTUS simply allowed the specific testimony in that specific case. Eyewitness testimony has always been allowed. Allowing it does not mean it is high-quality; only that it can be considered by the jury.
You have yet to show anything that backs up your claim that eyewitness testimony is high-quality. The evidence, research and analysis directly contradicts your assertion. Nothing seems to support your assertion that eyewitness testimony is high-quality.
My summary comment is that your logic does not objectively follow the (extremely obvious) evidence. It ignores that which does not support the desired conclusion. The truth is not necessarily that which we would prefer; ignoring the blatantly obvious to preserve a desired conclusion leads to a corrupted base of knowledge.
Are you opening a new topic or should I just ignore the above?
Whatever is clever.
So, . . . your logic is courts allow low-quality evidence in uncritically? No practices ("safeguards") have been put in place to bring eye-witness testimony up to a legal high standard? What are you really stating here? Drive your point home, please.
The question is NOT about safeguards used to identify acceptable eyewitness testimony (safeguards that are necessary because eyewitness testimony is not high-quality).
The question IS:
Is eyewitness testimony considered to be high-quality evidence?
Specifically, you claim that eyewitness testimony is high-quality . Every expert (et. al.) that I have linked (and indeed those you have linked) disagrees with you - strongly.
Point was already driven home and through the front door; see earlier comments. In short: experts (even your own) deem eyewitness testimony to NOT be high-quality.
Dr. Tyson (et. al.) is right. You are wrong. Read the links and the reasoning to understand why.
The Question becomes: Who and what is an "expert" to a scientific-atheist?
I don't give a dang about sycophants who read here. I am topic-driven. Dr. Tyson's statement on eyewitness testimony is irrelevant, because of changes in the practice of law. Courts continue to accept eyewitness testimony, that is what matters. Whether said testimony is low-quality or high-quality is a moot point. It is serviceable.
It's been fun to discuss this "hot" issue with you, nevertheless. Oddly, some insight/s have been gained. (Smile.)
Oh, try not to let the emoticons overwhelm you! Too many and they become personal. . . and mean. As for me, I barely see them anymore - I look through them. Or, I simply chalk it up to a state of mind.
Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a
scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless.
In the weak sense, Scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be
applied to any subject matter.
Not sure what to make of this post. You have now equivocated your claim from eyewitness testimony is of high quality to simply:
I think most every adult knows that. Doubt anyone would disagree. Of course that is not what you were arguing.
The very distinction that you were asserting is a moot point?
Alrighty then. And with a yawn and a stretch, I now move on. . . .
Something came to mind last night about eye-witness testimony: Bill Cosby sentenced on circumstantial evidence and eye-witness testimony.
That is what Dr. Tyson was talking about. The fact that our legal system relies on eyewitness testimony (probably more out of necessity than desire).
You quoted this for your seed:
Of course, courts would love to have direct evidence, but such evidence is commonly NOT possible and available after its been expended. However, without closely quoting from the trial record in this case, "overwhelming" legal evidence exist to satisfy a 12-person jury. Truth can be determined from accumulating indirect evidence. Do you agree?
Hopefully.
Courts take testimony presented in court seriously; we can trust it is the most reasonable and logical version of events they can achieve at a given moment.
I really have no idea why you keep stating the obvious. Dr. Tyson made this point upfront. You quoted him in your seed quote. What point are you trying to make? We all know courts use eyewitness testimony and that it is often accepted by the judge and considered by the jury. We all know that.
Eyewitness testimony is also known to be quite unreliable. You understand that too, right?
Nope. In science, I believe it is called "peer review."
Unreliable testimony is not allowed in courts. If the testimony does not stand up to a rigorous process, either a judge will toss it or impaneled jurists are instructed to ignore it.
Peer review is not evidence nor is it eyewitness testimony.
Correct. Because eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, the courts take measures to qualify the testimony before it is allowed.
What point are you trying to make?
That is the point I hold, too.
Okay. So you have no disagreement with Dr. Tyson?
Why? Because it's not unjustified. Eye-witness testimony has been shown to be extremely unreliable and sadly has led to many innocent people spending decades behind bars or worse, being executed for crimes they didn't commit.
" Research has found that eyewitness-identification testimony can be very unreliable. Law enforcement and the courts should follow the recommendations of social scientists when using and assessing eyewitness techniques, such as lineups, in criminal cases."
" Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall."
Before we continue, I would like to share this:
Let's not simply overlook or leave out such an important point! Eye-witness testimony is not departing from our court-system anytime soon, in my opinion.
On what is he biased? Are you saying he is biased against eyewitness testimony rather than simply stating facts determined by psychological research?
Eyewitness testimony is inherently flawed. You are claiming that which is contradicted by the evidence and research.
Courts do not have the luxury of perfect evidence. They work with what they can. Your own source showed this and you just noted it ("all reasonable efforts have and continue to as "deliverables" to get and keep eye-witness testimony sound").
Agreed. That fact also does not make eyewitness testimony good.
Eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable. Do you disagree?
No, double-teaming. Let DP have a turn at responding, please.
DP can respond as he pleases. I can respond as I please. My comments do not prevent his.
This is not a site where comments are single threaded.
The operative words are: "no double-teaming."
You and I 'talk' enough, in my opinion. No need to be greedy. There is enough of 'yours truly' to go around. LOL!
I did listen and no, I don't think he was being overtly biased. Is he biased by his education? No, he is informed by it. I'm not really sure what you are claiming he has a "bias" against. All Dr. Tyson is stating is that it's rather surprising that so much weight is given to eyewitness testimony when all the studies, research and evidence we have about it shows it to be extremely unreliable and malleable.
Courts are somewhat aware, but they have ignored much of the warnings because to change the way they prosecute crimes would make it harder for them to get convictions. It would force them to prove with physical evidence that a crime was committed and by whom.
Total nonsense. Please provide any evidence you can gather to prove that the courts have moved to keep eye witness testimony sound. Show us any new studies or statistics that have improved from the earlier studies done showing how unreliable eyewitness testimony really is.
I'm not really sure what the real debate is here.
Fact: Eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
Fact: Courts still use eyewitness testimony to convict people of crimes and sentence them to prison or even death.
Fact: Dr. Tyson finds this incongruity "odd".
Hopefully that cleared this strange debate up for you, though again I'm not sure what your argument is. If I had to guess you just have some issue with Dr. Tyson and simply want to take issue with his thoughtful statements.
Authors/seeders are not allowed to make up their own site rules.
(This will not surprise you.)
My hypothesis is that if Cal can establish eyewitness testimony as credible he will assert that claimed eyewitness testimony in the Bible is credible.
Ah, that does sound like the sort of angle he might be aiming for.
DP, it is the so-called "creditworthiness" of eye-witness testimony that courts test and upon successful passing of court standards accept into jury proceedings. Eye-witness testimony is not "inherently" bad. Eye-witness testimony can be potentially bad based on many factors (local, state, and federal courts have set standards for getting reasonable witness testimony. For example, courts have jury unanimous decision and beyond a reasonable doubt standards.)
See @11.1.1. There you will see a "for and con" on eye-witness testimony by our current SCOTUS.
My 'worry' with Dr. Tyson's comments on eye-witness testimony is, it invokes scientism: a belief that all sufficient answers can be found through the scientific method alone. There are plenty of situations in legal cases and in 'looking' for God where direct evidence is either not present or insufficient enough in quantity to render a scientific answer inconclusive. Thus, scientific evidence is not the only evidence allowed in modern court cases. If there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence a jury can receive such information and insights (after testing) and render a decision.
(Now, that is my final answer to this. I am done with this line of discussion, barring new relevant discussion.)
And here we have it:
From CB:
Be careful, you are displaying an agenda. My concern is Dr. Tyson has one (too.) Why else would he overlap disciplines (faith & law) in his reply to a question about God and near-death experiences to include the scientific method? I mean, I fully accept that he sees the world through a science lens. Thus, it may simply be that he should have let the question from the host pass him by (he did not however).
That's rich.
Yes. It is clear a scientific bias is on display (from the "scientist" speaking up). This is not about me or the Bible, per se. See @1.
This is my point. Dr. Tyson diminishes the value of the senses. Though, it is through his senses that all viewing of data (from microscopes and telescopes included) begin.
You're openly admitting you have an agenda, why should we be concerned if Dr. Tyson has one too? I don't believe he does, and I reject your newly coined word "scientism", but it's more than apparent that you do have an ulterior motive and agenda in what should be an easy concept to understand, that eyewitness testimony is flawed and cannot be solely relied upon if you're actually seeking truth.
"This is my point. Dr. Tyson diminishes the value of the senses"
Well then your point is ridiculous and beyond flawed. Dr. Tyson tells the truth about our senses and presents facts about how our senses can be fooled, altered and manipulated. It's as if you're trying to defend a magician who does slight of hand tricks by saying "If you didn't see him hide the coin in his palm, then who are you to say it didn't happen by magic?". Dr. Tyson is saying that just because we think we saw something or think we didn't see something, doesn't mean we did or didn't actually witness something. The magician didn't teleport the coin into his hand just because we didn't see the slight of hand movement, our senses aren't enough to be relied upon to come to solid conclusions and eyewitness testimony alone shouldn't be used as a basis of fact for either crimes or the bibles veracity.
A self-annihilating statement? Processing. . . .
Is he the only person viewing those images? Or can they be seen by everyone with functional eyes without others needing to have faith that they're there before they're able to see them?
Scientism is not a made up word. Thus your rejection is personal to you alone. But, I digress.
Who stated our senses and eye-witness testimony has to stand "alone"? I did not. Indirect evidence can stand alone, but it is best when it is cumulative.
For example: There are many scenarios when only two parties are involved in an incident (witness/defendant); should we verify the circumstances presented by the witness to what the defendant says s/he did-looking for answers? Or, should we look for scientific evidence which is not there or insufficient?
It's been in use for the last 40 years or so, but for the last decade it has primarily been used by theocrats to dismiss, downplay and demean scientific discoveries which is why I reject your use of it. Dr. Tyson is not in any way pushing some ideological view that science is God or that it replaces faith. He's simply stating facts that you're apparently very reticent to accept.
Dr. Tyson: Your senses are some of the worse data taking devices that exist.
Why is in necessary to dis the body's sense organs?
This isn't about "dissing" anything.
If the stats show he's right, he's right. There's no disrespect intended, and no reason to object based on emotion.
When you want to know what the temperature is, do you stick your finger out the window and guess? If you want to know what chemicals are in a liquid, do you just hold it in your mouth for a while to find out? Do you sniff the air to determine if there may be carbon monoxide gas in a home? Of course not, you use sensitive, reliable scientific tools to get accurate data. Is that "dis'ing" your bodies organs? Of course not, our senses are how we explore and navigate this world and every sense is important. But the fact remains, none of them are all that reliable in gathering detailed data that can be used to draw scientific conclusions. Sure, your senses can personally inform you as to whether it's a hot or cold day and likely help you make decisions as to whether you should find some shade or put on a jacket. But they wouldn't be very good at recording exact temperatures and thus be able to generally predict weather patterns as a meteorologist does based on thousands of data points gathered from precise measuring tools.
Accepting that our human senses can be fooled is not a "dis", it's a logical conclusion drawn based on the actual evidence.
Well, that one netted you a full-compliment of votes! You're having a good day. That's all.
So neither of our replies refuting your claim of Dr. Tyson "dis'ing" our senses was sufficient to garner a reply, or were they so thorough you simply have no response to our overwhelming logic?
Potential of being tricked or not (why continuously accenting the negative alone?), try using your data collection tools (that is what they are) without your senses and get back to me, us.
Your link is quite informative and from the year 2010.
@11.1.1, SCOTUS 2012 points out it attentive to the concerns and critiques of psychologists and the Innocents Project. It is now 2018. What is the reason for your grievous 'complaint'?
Furthermore, just for argument, as eye-witness testimony can be corrupted. In theory and sometimes fact, so can data. Consider the OJ trial. A scenario without eye-witnesses, but claims of corrupt data, that is, blood-stained gloves failed a chain-of-custody test.
What are you talking about?? What complaint?
Anything can be corrupted. Are you trying to argue that because all evidence can be corrupted that eyewitness testimony is just as bad (or good) as any other form of evidence?
Science can be corrupted?
You are unaware of tampered evidence - committing scientific fraud?
Nope.
Happy Thanksgiving, All!
When eye witness testimony is verified it is direct evidence.