Hearsay as Evidence

[Lestat]

I have always said that hearsay can be legitimate evidence. Evidence which should at least be considered. Of course, it also needs to be weighed against probabilities, other evidence (or lack thereof), and the credibility of the source(s).

I'll use DS as an example, because I believe his credibility is very high amongst almost everyone who has read his works. There may be some conceptual things I've disagreed with him over, but I can't think of anything he has ever written that has turned out to be flat out wrong. So let's suppose...

David mentions an 8 hour poker session where he was dealt pocket aces. Should we believe him? I for one, would accept his claim as being almost synonymous with 100%. For one thing, weight we should place in his credibility supercedes the counterpoint where he would lie. Secondly, I happen to know that the chance of this event occuring is well within reasonable expectations. Lastly, I have also been dealt pocket aces and have observed first hand that this is not only possible, but not an uncommon event.

Oh, and there is one other important consideration when evaluating evidencial hearsay. What if we're wrong? In this example, I don't think there are many dire consequences. So assuming David was dealt AA is still quite reasonable.

Now what if David claims to have been dealt pocket aces 4 times during the same session? Well now we should probably start putting a little more emphasis on probabilities. If we do, we'll find that yes... This is still within statistical reason. This combined with David's proven credibility, leaves nothing to be overly skeptical about. If you WERE skeptical over his credibility, the verification by a few other credible witnesses should be enough to ease your mind. We can strike this up to something that while maybe a little rare, is certainly still believable. However...

Suppose David makes a post tomorrow claiming that in one 8 hour session he was dealt pocket aces every single time! In other words, out of some 240 hands he didn't receive any hand other than AA. What should we do now?

First, we'd look at the statistical likelihood and deem that this is well outside of any normal probability. So much so, that it would be more likely our David had suffered a tempory loss of mind or was in a hallucinatory state, than this event actually occuring. What if Mason Malmuth backed David up claiming to have witnessed it? Well, that still wouldn't do it for me. For one thing, they might have an ulterior motive being in business together or friends, etc. In fact, even if most of the 2+2 community claimed to have witnessed this, I would still have my doubts. But the key word here is *most*.

What if EVERY single member of the 2+2 community (including those who I personally know and respect and who would have no ulterior motives), claimed to have witnessed this event? (please don't cite me on semantics here. Assume David was somehow showing his cards to everyone).

NOW should we start believing? Can we chalk it up to some gross statistical anomaly? Well, we should certainly be closer to doing so.

My whole point here is, that heasay as evidence CAN be significant. It can also be almost worthless. The hearsay evidence of the bible falls somewhere in between. It is certainly nowhere near as significant as people like txag, BluffThis, and NotReady, make it out to be.

If Christians want to use the bible as evidence, they need to be putting much more emphasis on the credibility of the writers and witnesses to miracles, than on Jesus and God. My issue is not with Jesus, God, or any of the miracles contained within the bible. It is with those who make the claim that these events ever occured. If you want me to believe that Jesus turned water into wine (an event that goes against everything I know about the world), you don't have to sell me on how great Jesus was. But you DO have to sell me on the credibility of your witness and why this hearsay evidence should outweigh every other piece of evidence that points to the contrary.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]

My whole point here is, that heasay as evidence CAN be significant. It can also be almost worthless. The hearsay evidence of the bible falls somewhere in between. It is certainly nowhere near as significant as people like txag, BluffThis, and NotReady, make it out to be.

If Christians want to use the bible as evidence, they need to be putting much more emphasis on the credibility of the writers and witnesses to miracles, than on Jesus and God. My issue is not with Jesus, God, or any of the miracles contained within the bible. It is with those who make the claim that these events ever occured. If you want me to believe that Jesus turned water into wine (an event that goes against everything I know about the world), you don't have to sell me on how great Jesus was. But you DO have to sell me on the credibility of your witness and why this hearsay evidence should outweigh every other piece of evidence that points to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we save a lot of time and admit that no amount of historical evidence, corroborating authors, letters of authenticity from renowned scholars, etc. would effectively convince you that the Bible is indeed Inspired?

You can't approach God with the idea of "prove it to me." You have to recognize you are in need of forgiveness, in need of grace, and then the truth is revealed to you. If you don't want to believe, ie if you think there is no NEED for salvation, empirical evidence will always be refutable, controversial, allegorical, or just plain false to you.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Why don't we save a lot of time and admit that no amount of historical evidence, corroborating authors, letters of authenticity from renowned scholars, etc. would effectively convince you that the Bible is indeed Inspired?
</font>

Why not start with that? You mention letters of authenticity, renowned shcolars, etc. Let's hear who they are and what their credentials are? There's much talk about what's IN the bible and almost none about who says so.

And you'll have to have a little patience with my ignorance. I do not know it's writers or the people you mentioned while neglecting to verify their names.

<font color="blue">You can't approach God with the idea of "prove it to me." </font>

But I don't. I approach the subject with; I don't see any gods, no one I know sees gods, no one I know knows anyone who has ever seen a god, there is literally nothing to make me think there are such things as gods, and some of the things in the bible go against all logical conjecture of known evidence.

So I'm not saying "prove it to me". I'm just saying there's no reason to think any gods exist. I'm also saying you're wrong to think a Christian God exists.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
David mentions an 8 hour poker session where he was dealt pocket aces. Should we believe him? I for one, would accept his claim as being almost synonymous with 100%. For one thing, weight we should place in his credibility supercedes the counterpoint where he would lie. Secondly, I happen to know that the chance of this event occuring is well within reasonable expectations. Lastly, I have also been dealt pocket aces and have observed first hand that this is not only possible, but not an uncommon event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, that's not hearsay. That's an eyewitness account.

The reason that hearsay is not generally admitted is the "Telephone game" effect, or if you prefer, Chinese Whispers. People who retell accounts that were conveyed to them by someone else rarely get it right, not to mention the fact that the person who originally told the account was not under oath at the time; i.e. I might have lied to you about were I was on a particular night because I didn't want to hang out with you and didn't want to hurt your feelings.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What if EVERY single member of the 2+2 community (including those who I personally know and respect and who would have no ulterior motives), claimed to have witnessed this event? .

NOW should we start believing? Can we chalk it up to some gross statistical anomaly? Well, we should certainly be closer to doing so.

My whole point here is, that heasay as evidence CAN be significant. It can also be almost worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would I believe it? I don't normally think in those terms so I'll have to translate. If there is a lot of seemingly sound hearsay, I'd shrugishly "tentatively accept it" rather than dispute it. If there is a major decision I need to make based on it being true then I'd likely buck the weird stuff.

In this DS scenario, my Humean take would be that trickery ( at some level) is a much, much more likely explanation than the witnesses being right. And that captures my approach, I don't actually believe anything, everything just has higher or lower likelihood of being true.

e-skeptic magazine (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/index.html) had a book review of "Don't believe everything you think" that covers some of my reasons for the approach I take.

luckyme

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> In this DS scenario, my Humean take would be that trickery ( at some level) is a much, much more likely explanation than the witnesses being right. And that captures my approach, I don't actually believe anything, everything just has higher or lower likelihood of being true.
</font>

By far the beest approach. Too bad everyone doesn't think like that.

[Lestat]

Good points. So I need a better definition of hearsay? What do you suggest?

[David Steele]

[ QUOTE ]
Good points. So I need a better definition of hearsay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable as well though hearsay is inadmissible in many legal procedures.

The bible would be mainly hearsay, accounts of others accounts, but some will argue this, so go after both problems.

D.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason that hearsay is not generally admitted is the "Telephone game" effect, or if you prefer, Chinese Whispers. People who retell accounts that were conveyed to them by someone else rarely get it right, not to mention the fact that the person who originally told the account was not under oath at the time; i.e. I might have lied to you about were I was on a particular night because I didn't want to hang out with you and didn't want to hurt your feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rashomon. Each eyewitness account differed.

DS was dealt pocket aces five times in a single session on PPSII.

[brashbrother]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Why don't we save a lot of time and admit that no amount of historical evidence, corroborating authors, letters of authenticity from renowned scholars, etc. would effectively convince you that the Bible is indeed Inspired?
</font>

Why not start with that? You mention letters of authenticity, renowned shcolars, etc. Let's hear who they are and what their credentials are? There's much talk about what's IN the bible and almost none about who says so.

And you'll have to have a little patience with my ignorance. I do not know it's writers or the people you mentioned while neglecting to verify their names.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for my semi-sarcastic reply, I assumed you had some idea how the Bible came to be in its present form. I assumed you were asking how we can prove its Divine Inspiration, which of course cannot be done using any scientific or mathematical reasoning. As for its historical accuracy, much of the text was independently verified with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which corroborrated previously unknown facts. There were hundreds of authors, who were historical figures. Are you asking about them, or about some other facet of its history?

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">You can't approach God with the idea of "prove it to me." </font>

But I don't. I approach the subject with; I don't see any <font color="red">conscience,</font> no one I know sees<font color="red"> their conscience </font>, no one I know knows anyone who has ever seen <font color="red"> their conscience </font>, there is literally nothing to make me think there are such things as <font color="red"> consciences </font>, and some of the things in the bible go against all logical conjecture of known evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">just so people do not think I misquoted you, I changed "god(s)" to the words in red above. Point is, you cannot scientifically prove some things, yet they exist. You can show behaviors and claim they occur because of these things, but anyone can argue that point. I am not trying to prove god exists, only trying to explain that He is the reason for my behavior.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not saying "prove it to me". I'm just saying there's no reason to think any gods exist. I'm also saying you're wrong to think a Christian God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
We will have to agree to disagree here, for the reason above; my conscience is evidence to me that God exists.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You can't approach God with the idea of "prove it to me."

But I don't. I approach the subject with; I don't see any conscience, no one I know sees their conscience , no one I know knows anyone who has ever seen their conscience , there is literally nothing to make me think there are such things as consciences , and some of the things in the bible go against all logical conjecture of known evidence </font>

But surely you're not denying the existence of conscience, are you? What more evidence do you need that sentience exists than to observe it and feel it first hand?

You're correct that we do not fully understand self-awareness and it's possible we never will. But there is HUGE fault in your logic. Just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean we make something up and plug it in as an answer because it suits our fancy.

There is hard evidence that conscience is real, whether we understand it or not. There is no hard evidence that god is real. Except of course for hearsay. I'll have to wiki the dead sea scrolls when I have time.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

My whole point here is, that heasay as evidence CAN be significant.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would think so. Most of what you know comes from hearsay evidence, if you're using hearsay to refer to evidence that doesn't necessarily include statements made in court. Virtually all of what you know about history is hearsay. Even most of your scientific knowledge derives from hearsay, unless you have conducted the experiment yourself or received the knowledge from people who have.

[ QUOTE ]

But you DO have to sell me on the credibility of your witness


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, how do we do that? Are you making a specific attack on their credibility? And of what nature? They were liars? They were ignorant? They were deceived? Which?

[ QUOTE ]

why this hearsay evidence should outweigh every other piece of evidence that points to the contrary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which evidence is outweighed by every other piece of evidence? If you're talking about the miracles, there can be no scientific law that miracles can't happen. Do you have specific evidence they didn't happen?

[chezlaw]

The chief problem is bias. The telephone game mentioned by Borodog is a serious problem but made far worse when each link in the chain is biased towards an answer. Reports that have gone through a long chain of systematic bias in the way they gather data contain no evidentiary value at all.

Credibility of the orignal witnesses is no help because the evidence for their credibility suffers the same bias problem.

All we have as so called 'evidence' is a group of people eager to believe, desperately clinging to hope offered by a previous group of credulous people desperately clinging to hope offerered by a previous group of credulous people ... [and that's ignoring the politics of people who don't believe manipulating the credulous]

To call the result evidence is silly. Its saying that the result of this chain mean that what they claim is more likely to be true and that's wrong. I gave the example of reports into WMD's once before - the reports (dodgy dossiers as they are known in the UK) were the biased product of people trying to justify what they had already decided was true (that's being kind), the reports weren't evidence of WMDs in that the existence of the reports didn't give the reader any more reason to believe WMDs existed.

The reverse could be argued (like jesus/god) that the weakness of the evidence in such biased reports is evidence that there is no real evidence.

chez

[PLOlover]

The real deal is that if DS says something and you want to use him as a witness then I can cross examine DS, and we each get a shot at him as a witness. Maybe he makes an identification of a person, for example. Then I cross examine and it comes out that he saw a person in the dark at 200 feet and didn't get a good look and oh and didn't have his glasses on, etc.

If DS says that MM told him(DS) that MM saw something, then basically you are letting MM testify through DS without being able to cross examine MM. Same situation as above, can't cross MM, can't ask how far away, etc., just DS says that MM saw someone.

[PokerNeophyte]

[ QUOTE ]
Good points. So I need a better definition of hearsay? What do you suggest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Hearsay is testimony about what someone else said. So, in your example, hearsay would be someone saying that DS told him he got dealt Aces 240 times in a row.

In addition to what's already been said, one of the problems with hearsay in a trial is that you can't cross-examine the person who made the original comment.

I'm not sure looking at rules of evidence in American courts is the best way to settle a dispute about the bible though.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
But you DO have to sell me on the credibility of your witness and why this hearsay evidence should outweigh every other piece of evidence that points to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the bible mentions washing your hands and not eating fat, thousands of years before germs and arteriosclerosis.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Which evidence is outweighed by every other piece of evidence? If you're talking about the miracles, there can be no scientific law that miracles can't happen. Do you have specific evidence they didn't happen? </font>

I am most definitely not talking about miracles. So let's take one:

Jesus feeding hundreds (thousands?) of people with only a loaf of bread and two fish. Did ALL of the people there claim to have seen it? Who eventually wrote it down? Was it the same person that wound up recording it into the dead sea scrolls or bible? I'd like to have some information on THESE people. Who were they? What was their education? What did they do for a living, etc.?

Again, I have no problem believing that Jesus actually performed this miracle if He was truly the Son of God. My issue is with those making the claim. Who were they and what were their credentials, motivations, etc.?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not trying to prove god exists, only trying to explain that He is the reason for my behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about this: what if he doesn't exist? Then who is the reason for your behavior?

Look at ancient Greeks/Romans who thought Zeus/Apollo/etc. were the reasons for their behavior. They also had a conscience, and probably used that as an argument for the existence of their gods.

Today, we laugh at the ancient Greeks and Romans for such primitive beliefs that had no evidence to support them. Explain to me how your primitive beliefs are any different. When you bow down and pray to an invisible spirit, how is it any different than a primitive Polynesian culture praying to a volcano god?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]


All we have as so called 'evidence' is a group of people eager to believe, desperately clinging to hope offered by a previous group of credulous people desperately clinging to hope offerered by a previous group of credulous people ... [and that's ignoring the politics of people who don't believe manipulating the credulous]


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly - and religion has the added problem of the new believers usually not being adults. In most cases they are indoctrinated into the religion as impressionable children. If an adult authority figure passes off hearsay to a child as unimpeachable evidence, the child believes it. By the time they are old enough to decide for themsleves it is often too late - they have been indoctrinated (some might argue brainwashed). They then pass the hearsay on as fact to their own children.

The children are not only less able to make a rational assessment of the facts, their judgement is also clouded by the desire to win the approval of their parents/authority figures.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Today, we laugh at the ancient Greeks and Romans for such primitive beliefs that had no evidence to support them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Jesus feeding hundreds (thousands?) of people with only a loaf of bread and two fish


[/ QUOTE ]

That's considered a miracle. So where's all the evidence that outweighs? Saying you have questions about the evidence isn't itself evidence.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Jesus feeding hundreds (thousands?) of people with only a loaf of bread and two fish


[/ QUOTE ]

That's considered a miracle. So where's all the evidence that outweighs? Saying you have questions about the evidence isn't itself evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

this reminds me of a clip I think I saw on the daily show from some other shown on CNN I think...

a republican was asked something like..

"Do you have any EVIDENCE that the Democrats were behind this?"

he responded..

"Do you have any evidence that they WEREN'T behind it?"

------------------------------------------

EDIT: I believe this is about the value of such hearsay as evidence...questions concerning relevent factors do affect what value we should place on such hearsay as evidence..

and since these questions cannot frequently even be answered, hearsay is not usually regarded as having much value at all...

I would agree that for common purposes it should (and does) provide evidence...but certainly much less than a confirmed account would

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Jesus feeding hundreds (thousands?) of people with only a loaf of bread and two fish


[/ QUOTE ]

That's considered a miracle. So where's all the evidence that outweighs? Saying you have questions about the evidence isn't itself evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

this reminds me of a clip I think I saw on the daily show from some other shown on CNN I think...

a republican was asked something like..

"Do you have any EVIDENCE that the Democrats were behind this?"

he responded..

"Do you have any evidence that they WEREN'T behind it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ironclad evidence proving he's a Republican, isn't it.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Jesus feeding hundreds (thousands?) of people with only a loaf of bread and two fish


[/ QUOTE ]

That's considered a miracle. So where's all the evidence that outweighs? Saying you have questions about the evidence isn't itself evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

this reminds me of a clip I think I saw on the daily show from some other shown on CNN I think...

a republican was asked something like..

"Do you have any EVIDENCE that the Democrats were behind this?"

he responded..

"Do you have any evidence that they WEREN'T behind it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ironclad evidence proving he's a Republican, isn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely...well, the caption under his name probably gave it away as well..

but given the mistake made by FOX NEWS putting a caption of (D) under Mark Foley...I think his statement might be more relaible evidence /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

he responded..

"Do you have any evidence that they WEREN'T behind it?"


[/ QUOTE ]

This would be relevant if the reporter had said there was evidence the dems weren't behind it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Jesus feeding hundreds (thousands?) of people with only a loaf of bread and two fish


[/ QUOTE ]

That's considered a miracle. So where's all the evidence that outweighs? Saying you have questions about the evidence isn't itself evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gotta be kidding me NotReady... You mean if I tell you about a miracle God just performed by turning a lincoln penny that was sitting on my desk into $5,000,000.00... You'd believe it on the basis you have no counter-evidence to support it didn't happen?

[David Sklansky]

He is nitpicking about the word "evidence". You don't have evidence these things didn't happen. But you have very good reasons to believe it didn't happen.