Gemli explains...

[Res Ipsa]

I don't have to guess at what Gemli would and would not say. He is articulate and clear in what he has to say. He singles out religion for his "stories aren't evidence" rule. And claiming that the sentence "A Monk ate a sandwich" is a story that is religious in nature is absurd.

A story that friends of Joseph Smith saw some plates in the woods is a similar story. But that’s not the whole story. The fantastical elements are precisely the ones that Gemli appears to be objecting to.

Take out the religious nature and you’ve by definition removed the fantastical nature. Unless your definition of a religious story is so broad that a monk eating a sandwich fits it.

I apologize for not answering your first question: "Are you not making a categorical rejection of stories that are fantastical in nature?" I haven't been using the term "fantastical in nature" and I don't know what you mean by fantastical, so I don't have any clear answer for you. I've described my heuristics for deciding for myself which imagined entities are real. I use it to evaluate any claim that X exists, so I don't think it could be fairly called a categorical rejection of anything. Likewise, I'm considering offered evidence, so I don't think I'm categorizing claims and rejecting consideration of certain categories. It is possible, though, that many, most, or even all of your category of "fantastical in nature" doesn't pass my heuristic, at least based on current evidence.

Gemli is the one that has singled out religious stories, so you'll have to ask him what he would consider to be a religious story. My comments are: if we are going to single out some written or oral accounts as "not evidence," while treating other oral or written accounts as "evidence," then there needs to be some reasonable, principled basis for doing so. Otherwise, it's special pleading. Simply labeling certain stories as "fantastical" doesn't provide that basis. In addition, taken in context, any claim that Gimli would classify "a monk ate a sandwich" as a religious story is, as I said, simply absurd.

Have you read the the comment string under discussion?

[Res Ipsa]

Having read and paid attention to what Gemli actually posted, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the nature of his argument.

Have you ever watched a trial and paid attention to things get admitted into evidence? The jury isn't just handed a fingerprint taken from the defendant and a fingerprint (or partial fingerprint) taken from the alleged murder weapon. A witness is sworn in and tells a story about the two fingerprints. In fact, fingerprint identification involves a significant amount of subjective judgment. The same is true of wound to wound shapes -- they are subjective judgments that are introduced into evidence through stories told by "experts."

Were the fingerprints on the gun made before or during the shooting? Or were they planted afterward by someone? That evidence is established through a story.

Physical objects very rarely speak for themselves. It is the stories that turn physical objects into evidence.

Your alien example seems to conflate determining whether something is evidence with how much weight to give evidence. The concept that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a guideline to setting the burden of proof for a given claim. It is not a rule for determining what is evidence and what is not. If a murder suspect claims alien abduction as their alibi, their eyewitness testimony would be admissible as evidence. How much weight to give that evidence would be up to the jury. Acknowledging that something is evidence is not an admission that it is persuasive evidence or evidence that satisfies the appropriate burden of proof.

I’d love to see you in court arguing that the forensic evidence against your client is just a story.

Lawyers do that all the time. We call it attacking the credibility of the witness. The message to the jury is: the story you are being told isn't true.

[I Have Questions]

I’d love to see you in court arguing that the forensic evidence against your client is just a story.

Lawyers do that all the time. We call it attacking the credibility of the witness. The message to the jury is: the story you are being told isn't true.

How, in the case where a ballistics expert is showing that the rifling pattern on the bullet that killed the victim matches the rifling pattern on the barrel of the gun owned by the defendant, would you make the case that he’s just telling a story?

[Rivendale]

Lawyers do that all the time. We call it attacking the credibility of the witness. The message to the jury is: the story you are being told isn't true.

How, in the case where a ballistics expert is showing that the rifling pattern on the bullet that killed the victim matches the rifling pattern on the barrel of the gun owned by the defendant, would you make the case that he’s just telling a story?

It is ludicrous that stories represent equal seating at the table of reality opposed to a verifiable demonstration of the story. Testable, repeatable demonstrations using actual materials leap far ahead of a claim compared to a story of a claim.

[Res Ipsa]

Lawyers do that all the time. We call it attacking the credibility of the witness. The message to the jury is: the story you are being told isn't true.

How, in the case where a ballistics expert is showing that the rifling pattern on the bullet that killed the victim matches the rifling pattern on the barrel of the gun owned by the defendant, would you make the case that he’s just telling a story?

I've never claimed that the witness is "just" telling a story. Remember, I'm the guy taking the position that stories are admissible evidence. So why would I disparage testimonial evidence?

The judge doesn't just hand the jury photographs of what's left of a bullet and the inside of the barrel. The expert tells the jury what their opinion is and why they reached that opinion. That's the story. No story -- no evidence.

It's kind of ironic that you chose ballistics evidence as your gotcha. The reliability of ballistics evidence has come increasing under fire in the last few years. The Supreme Court of Maryland issued an opinion last year banning the use of ballistics evidence to match a bullet to a specific firearm.https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/loca ... 0794815197 Here's more on the reliability of forensic firearm evidence:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... is-flawed/
https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2023/firearm-forensics-trial

Lay witnesses are generally restricted to testimony about facts. There are limited exceptions. Here's my state's rule on opinion testimony by lay witnesses:

ER 701
OPINION TESTIMONY BY LAY WITNESSES
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702.

Expert testimony, is by definition, opinion testimony. Here's our rule on expert opinions:

ER 702 TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Although the rule includes "or otherwise," nearly all expert testimony is opinion testimony. Just like the ballistic expert. They tell a story to the jury based on their opinions. The jury decides whether to accept or reject the story. If it accepts, it decides how much weight to put on the story.

But it's still a story.

[Res Ipsa]

How, in the case where a ballistics expert is showing that the rifling pattern on the bullet that killed the victim matches the rifling pattern on the barrel of the gun owned by the defendant, would you make the case that he’s just telling a story?

It is ludicrous that stories represent equal seating at the table of reality opposed to a verifiable demonstration of the story. Testable, repeatable demonstrations using actual materials leap far ahead of a claim compared to a story of a claim.

You're conflating two different questions: whether something qualifies as "evidence" and how much weight should be given to a piece of evidence.

[I Have Questions]

How, in the case where a ballistics expert is showing that the rifling pattern on the bullet that killed the victim matches the rifling pattern on the barrel of the gun owned by the defendant, would you make the case that he’s just telling a story?

I've never claimed that the witness is "just" telling a story. Remember, I'm the guy taking the position that stories are admissible evidence. So why would I disparage testimonial evidence?

The judge doesn't just hand the jury photographs of what's left of a bullet and the inside of the barrel. The expert tells the jury what their opinion is and why they reached that opinion. That's the story. No story -- no evidence.

It's kind of ironic that you chose ballistics evidence as your gotcha. The reliability of ballistics evidence has come increasing under fire in the last few years. The Supreme Court of Maryland issued an opinion last year banning the use of ballistics evidence to match a bullet to a specific firearm.https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/loca ... 0794815197 Here's more on the reliability of forensic firearm evidence:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... is-flawed/
https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2023/firearm-forensics-trial

Lay witnesses are generally restricted to testimony about facts. There are limited exceptions. Here's my state's rule on opinion testimony by lay witnesses:

ER 701
OPINION TESTIMONY BY LAY WITNESSES
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702.

Expert testimony, is by definition, opinion testimony. Here's our rule on expert opinions:

ER 702 TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Although the rule includes "or otherwise," nearly all expert testimony is opinion testimony. Just like the ballistic expert. They tell a story to the jury based on their opinions. The jury decides whether to accept or reject the story. If it accepts, it decides how much weight to put on the story.

But it's still a story.

I understand your point.

I repeat a question I asked earlier. Are stories about God, evidence of God’s existence?

[Marcus]

[I understand your point.

I repeat a question I asked earlier. Are stories about God, evidence of God’s existence?

Thank you for getting this thread back on track. This thread is getting derailed by these legal arguments about evidence that is not of the type gemli meant when he used his shorthand of "stories require evidence" to indicate he was talking about supernatural stories which are stand alone stories with no physical evidence.

As the op, I'd like to request discussions get back to that, and that If others want to continue discussing the legalities of evidence such as ballistics to please start their own thread as that is not what this thread is about.

[Res Ipsa]

I've never claimed that the witness is "just" telling a story. Remember, I'm the guy taking the position that stories are admissible evidence. So why would I disparage testimonial evidence?

The judge doesn't just hand the jury photographs of what's left of a bullet and the inside of the barrel. The expert tells the jury what their opinion is and why they reached that opinion. That's the story. No story -- no evidence.

It's kind of ironic that you chose ballistics evidence as your gotcha. The reliability of ballistics evidence has come increasing under fire in the last few years. The Supreme Court of Maryland issued an opinion last year banning the use of ballistics evidence to match a bullet to a specific firearm.https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/loca ... 0794815197 Here's more on the reliability of forensic firearm evidence:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... is-flawed/
https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2023/firearm-forensics-trial

Lay witnesses are generally restricted to testimony about facts. There are limited exceptions. Here's my state's rule on opinion testimony by lay witnesses:



Expert testimony, is by definition, opinion testimony. Here's our rule on expert opinions:



Although the rule includes "or otherwise," nearly all expert testimony is opinion testimony. Just like the ballistic expert. They tell a story to the jury based on their opinions. The jury decides whether to accept or reject the story. If it accepts, it decides how much weight to put on the story.

But it's still a story.

I understand your point.

I repeat a question I asked earlier. Are stories about God, evidence of God’s existence?

Cool. Now we have to get into the nitty and the gritty. First, what does it mean for X to be evidence for the existence of Y? I usually use something like this: X is evidence for the existence of Y if and only if X increases the probability that Y exists, regardless of the magnitude of the increase. Does that work for you?

[huckelberry]

I understand your point.

I repeat a question I asked earlier. Are stories about God, evidence of God’s existence?

Thank you for getting this thread back on track. This thread is getting derailed by these legal arguments about evidence that is not of the type gemli meant when he used his shorthand of "stories require evidence" to indicate he was talking about supernatural stories which are stand alone stories with no physical evidence.

As the op, I'd like to request discussions get back to that, and that if others want to continue discussing the legalities of evidence such as ballistics to please start their own thread as that is not what this thread is about.

Marcus, But of course stories are evidence of God. By themselves weak but most believers look at the nature of the universe as reflecting God so there is a great deal of physical evidence. That does not escape the interpretive puzzles or uncertainties of course.

Paul and Stephen saw Jesus raised from the dead and in some way reflecting divine glory. Their story is about a real event, those individuals experience. Now that does not mean that there is only one way to interpret the story or event. It is possible to say their seeing was in the realm of imagination, hope, or enthusiasm. Just because evidence exists does not mean we have the truth safely in hand. I think Res Ipsa's observations about trials are relevant because they are about evaluating evidence. In trials evaluating evidence is taken seriously, and for me trials can also illustrate how knowing the truth can remain painfully out of reach.