Gemli explains...

[huckelberry]

Doc, according to my limited expertise, I served as a juror once, the following happens. Attorneys invite stories from witnesses and find folks with other information relative to the stories. Then a group on nonexperts, jurors, argue about it all until the jurors that don't agree reach the desperation point of crying so a decision is finally made and every body finally, thank God, gets to go home.

It's not a perfect device but it is a lot better than the ancient tradition of just torturing people till they confessed.

I have been a juror also. The testimonies (stories) were not the evidence that eventually led us our verdicts. They simply were a springboard to communicate information from each prospective witness. We then considered the testimonies credibility, physical evidence, prior documented behaviors, likelihood of proposed events, and other court evidence to arrive at a verdict.

Rivendale, I think the attorneys tried to put as much clarifying information together as they could. I am sure that is most always the case. People when hearing just a story will reasonably have reservations. Like drumdude's query, I would wonder if the witnesses had any way of knowing that whatever it was they saw was an actual history of ancient people living in the Americas. I think they would have no information about that and would keep that in mind.

[huckelberry]

Stories as evidence for God. I think most believers take as primary evidence of the existence of God the wonder of the universe and that its order is able to shake out both living creatures and living creatures capable of learning growing and sometimes rational thought. People think what comes out of the physical mix says something about the order foundation of that mix.

People have their own spiritual experience which they interpret in relation to the wonder of the universe.

For believers these undergird the stories in religion. It is not proof but it is not just empty stories. Gemli avoids this point. But he does not believe and what I have pointed to here does not demand or force him to believe. My use of the word avoid does not demonstrate he is wrong or must change. It does a bit of explanation of why I find only limited interest in his repetitions.

[Res Ipsa]

This argument of Gemli’s is not the knock out punch he seems to think it is. It’s a shallow application of post-modern deconstruction.

His claim is simply wrong. Stories are evidence. We accept that they are so commonly in our everyday lives that we don’t think about it. Your comment about accepting the story of the Higgs Boson is one example of something we all do thousands of times a day. We deprive people of their liberty and forcibly move money from one person to another based on stories. The murder weapon in a trial, just sitting there in front of the jury, isn’t evidence of anything. It becomes evidence through the stories told by witnesses and experts.

What Gemli is functionally doing with this argument is special pleading that religious stories should be treated differently than other stories. But I’m not seeing an attempt to justify the special pleading.

Out of curiosity, when you’re in court do stories, well, evidentiary stories, require any evidence to establish truth probability? Are alibis enough a la, “My friend can attest I was at his house at the time of the murders.” And then George attests to that ‘evidence’, so we now have two ‘evidences’. Does the court normally accept those stories as factual until proven otherwise?

- Doc

Testimony under oath is evidence. The standard jury instructions do not give testimony as a category any lesser value than any other type of evidence.

At trial, there is no general presumption that testimony is truthful or credible. The judge will instruct the jury that it is the jury’s job to assess the credibility of all witness testimony.

Keep in mind that, in general, no piece of physical evidence is admitted into evidence without some kind of testimonial story. Technically, that’s called foundation. For example, with a murder weapon, several stories may need to be told: The person who found the weapon, people in the chain of custody, eyewitnesses to use of the weapon, the person who took fingerprint evidence, the technician that examined fingerprints on the gun and compared them with the defendant’s fingerprints, etc. Those are all stories, just like an alibi.

A person can be sentenced to prison without any physical evidence at all.

Witness testimony is evidence. It is also a story told by the witness.

[Res Ipsa]

Out of curiosity, when you’re in court do stories, well, evidentiary stories, require any evidence to establish truth probability? Are alibis enough a la, “My friend can attest I was at his house at the time of the murders.” And then George attests to that ‘evidence’, so we now have two ‘evidences’. Does the court normally accept those stories as factual until proven otherwise?

- Doc

Doc, according to my limited expertise, I served as a juror once, the following happens. Attorneys invite stories from witnesses and find folks with other information relative to the stories. Then a group on nonexperts, jurors, argue about it all until the jurors that don't agree reach the desperation point of crying so a decision is finally made and every body finally, thank God, gets to go home.

It's not a perfect device but it is a lot better than the ancient tradition of just torturing people till they confessed.

It’s far from a perfect system. But there are far worse alternatives than giving the accused a chance to persuade a group of fellow citizens.

[Marcus]

Out of curiosity, when you’re in court do stories, well, evidentiary stories, require any evidence to establish truth probability? Are alibis enough a la, “My friend can attest I was at his house at the time of the murders.” And then George attests to that ‘evidence’, so we now have two ‘evidences’. Does the court normally accept those stories as factual until proven otherwise?

- Doc

Doc, according to my limited expertise, I served as a juror once, the following happens. Attorneys invite stories from witnesses and find folks with other information relative to the stories. Then a group on nonexperts, jurors, argue about it all until the jurors that don't agree reach the desperation point of crying so a decision is finally made and every body finally, thank God, gets to go home.

It's not a perfect device but it is a lot better than the ancient tradition of just torturing people till they confessed.

I appreciated this very, very much, huckelberry, thanks.

[Rivendale]

I have been a juror also. The testimonies (stories) were not the evidence that eventually led us our verdicts. They simply were a springboard to communicate information from each prospective witness. We then considered the testimonies credibility, physical evidence, prior documented behaviors, likelihood of proposed events, and other court evidence to arrive at a verdict.

You wouldn’t have voted that the testimony of the witnesses was sufficient to persuade you that the plates were an ancient record of Jews who traveled to the Americas 600 years before Christ???

I don't know. I think they were so enthralled and enchanted with Joseph that I might have went along with it. Most people believed this before Joseph showed up so I doubt it would take much persuasion. I think they had superstitious, religious, and monetary motivations. The trifecta of human temptations. The only think missing is sex and that comes later.

[Marcus]

Gemli's talked about this a fair amount, If I recall correctly, and by now 'stories aren't evidence' is just his short cut to the topic. Again If I recall correctly, his objection to 'stories' were that the stories were not accompanied by any objective physical evidence. Given that the main story he is referring to (angel, plates, historicity, reformed Egyptian language) not only has no physical evidence associated with it, but also has an overwhelming amount of physical evidence discounting it, adds to the strength of his point.

He is not engaging in special pleading in my opinion, he is objecting to the special pleading encompassed in believing in the Book of Mormon on the basis of the 'witnesses,' while ignoring every other bit of legitimate information.

[Rivendale]

ETA: I’d suggest that what juries do is listen to all the stories and then construct a story they can agree upon.

I could agree on that. Physical evidence helps to galvanize the ideas though. I think that is why Joseph needed a prop. The Book of Abraham came with its own material manifestation. Zelph the white Lamanite was used the same way. The tapestry becomes stronger when objects are used to reinforce the theological claims. That is what Gemli keeps criticizing. Todays judicial system can send someone to prison on testimony but Joseph needed a hook to prime the imaginations of the people of that era. After all, the burned over district left them in need of greater light and knowledge. Eta. The Salem Witch trials show what happens when witness testimony governs society.

[Res Ipsa]

I could agree on that. Physical evidence helps to galvanize the ideas though. I think that is why Joseph needed a prop. The Book of Abraham came with its own material manifestation. Zelph the white Lamanite was used the same way. The tapestry becomes stronger when objects are used to reinforce the theological claims. That is what Gemli keeps criticizing. Todays judicial system can send someone to prison on testimony but Joseph needed a hook to prime the imaginations of the people of that era. After all, the burned over district left them in need of greater light and knowledge. Eta. The Salem Witch trials show what happens when witness testimony governs society.

I do not understand your point. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that stories need objects to be trustworthy. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that millions of people were fooled because Smith had an object to go with his story.

It’s easy to claim that Smith needed a fake set of players as a prop because the claim cannot be tested. Just like almost every religious story. On the other hand, without Joseph’s stories, even plates of gold in an untranslatable language would never have led to the LDS Church.

As an aside, the Salem witch trials did include physical evidence in the form of witches marks and possession of items used in witchcraft. Touching evidence was also considered, which was a kind of in court test.

The problems with the Salem Witch trials weren’t caused by the admission of testimony as evidence. The main problems were the admission of confessions obtained by torture; abuse of courts of Oyer and Terminer, which relied on a presumption of guilt; and admission of “Spectral Evidence.”

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/collex/exh ... ing%20them).

[Res Ipsa]

Gemli's talked about this a fair amount, If I recall correctly, and by now 'stories aren't evidence' is just his short cut to the topic. Again If I recall correctly, his objection to 'stories' were that the stories were not accompanied by any objective physical evidence. Given that the main story he is referring to (angel, plates, historicity, reformed Egyptian language) not only has no physical evidence associated with it, but also has an overwhelming amount of physical evidence discounting it, adds to the strength of his point.

He is not engaging in special pleading in my opinion, he is objecting to the special pleading encompassed in believing in the Book of Mormon on the basis of the 'witnesses,' while ignoring every other bit of legitimate information.

I agree with you that weighing the totality of the evidence is that the Book of Mormon is not what Smith and the text itself claims it to be. But Gemli’s argument in the referenced thread isn’t a weighing of the evidence — it’s a denial that stories aren’t evidence. And he applies that, not just to the Book of Mormon, but to all religious stories.

That is contrary to the way we treat oral or written statements in every other context, which is what makes it special pleading. There is no rule that says “oral or written statements can’t be considered evidence unless they come with some kind of physical evidence.

Isn’t Gemli the guy who used to take on climate deniers in the comments sections of the NYT? If so, I’ve read his arguments in the past and he can put together and articulate very good arguments. “Stories aren’t evidence” isn’t one of them. Even brilliant people make bad arguments from time to time.

During trials, lawyers will from time to time object to the admission of evidence. If it’s a jury trial, a successful objection means that the jury doesn’t get to hear the evidence. If you listen to a trial, you’ll often hear the judge say something like “Denied. The objection goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence.” Gemli is arguing that testimony itself isn’t admissible evidence. I doubt that Gemli himself consistently applies that rule in his day to day life. He would be better off arguing the weight of the Witness’s testimony rather than the admissibility.