A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.

[Teallaura]

Lawyers may concern themselves with a distinction between circumstances and eyewitness testimony. I don't.

Circumstantial evidence is some set of facts that, according to some accuser, establish a high probability that some person is guilty of some crime. According to TV scriptwriters, we're supposed to think that such facts don't actually prove anything, whereas eyewitness testimony would prove something. But the law requires only that guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt (in criminal cases), and circumstances can do that just as well as anyone's testimony.

I make no distinction because if someone testifies to something, then what I have is the fact of their testimony, i.e., it is a fact that they said such-and-such. That makes it evidence for whatever their testimony alleges. Depending on any number of other facts, I may consider their say-so proof beyond reasonable doubt, or I may think that it leaves lots of room for reasonable doubt.

That's stupid - eye witness testimony isn't circumstantial evidence. It's direct evidence. Ignoring the fact that you are drawing your evidentiary procedures from bad TV writing, circumstantial evidence can be substantiated by any form of evidence: eye witness, documentary and DNA, among many. DNA evidence is NOT always direct evidence because its presence only indicates someone has been present - it doesn't tell us when or under what circumstances.

Failure to understand how evidence works leads to misapplying bad evidence and throwing out perfectly good evidence. You are doing the latter.

[seer]

It would not be a necessarily verifiable fact of history, like any other fact in history.

But it doesn't have to be "verifiable" to be a fact of history, as much a fact of history as any other fact of history.

[seer]

It is YOU

No I'm not, didn't you already agree that my experience of morning tea is evidence of that event? This is why your definition is both arbitrary and restrictive - it would not cover a great deal of events we experience in our lives. And if God communicated to men that would be historical and personal. It would not fall under your arbitrary definition, nor would it need to to be true.

[robertb]

No I'm not, didn't you already agree that my experience of morning tea is evidence of that event?

Actually, your experience of morning tea is evidence that you think you had morning tea. A dirty tea cup in your sink would be evidence that you actually had morning tea. ;)

[seer]

What I said, the only thing I said, was a statement about what I believe the word "evidence" to mean. In this context, "definition" is just a different label for meaning: a definition is a statement of what a word means, and my statement was nothing but that.

But your statement is the standard that you are using. It can not be supported by objective fact, so it isn't evidence. Therefore you do believe things to be true (your statement) apart from evidence.

[seer]

Actually, your experience of morning tea is evidence that you think you had morning tea. A dirty tea cup in your sink would be evidence that you actually had morning tea. ;)

Nope, the dirty tea cup could be from someone else, or I could have been from the day before (not evidence that I had tea this AM). And if you are correct then my seeing the dirty tea cup in the sink is only me thinking I see dirty tea cup in the sink. Everything we do see or say is filtered through our personal experience - there is nothing else.

[robertb]

Nope, the dirty tea cup could be from someone else, or I could have been from the day before (not evidence that I had tea this AM). And if you are correct then my seeing the dirty tea cup in the sink is only me thinking I see dirty tea cup in the sink. Everything we do see or say is filtered through our personal experience - there is nothing else.

Yea, but not really what I was getting at. I was referring to your experience as evidence to someone other than yourself.

[seer]

Yea, but not really what I was getting at. I was referring to your experience as evidence to someone other than yourself.

I'm not asking for anyone else to confirm my experience, and the lack of that does not make the experience any less a fact of history.

[robertb]

I'm not asking for anyone else to confirm my experience, and the lack of that does not make the experience any less a fact of history.

Using the word "fact" loosely, I suppose.

[seer]

Using the word "fact" loosely, I suppose.

Why? Why isn't my tea drinking experience just as much a fact of history as any other fact?

[Doug Shaver]

That's stupid - eye witness testimony isn't circumstantial evidence. It's direct evidence.

The distinction may be relevant in a court of law. It is not relevant to my epistemology.

Ignoring the fact that you are drawing your evidentiary procedures from bad TV writing

That is not what I drew from TV writing. I drew my evidentiary procedures from a website maintained by lawyers.

Failure to understand how evidence works leads to misapplying bad evidence and throwing out perfectly good evidence. You are doing the latter.

You say so. What I'm actually doing is disagreeing with you about what constitutes good evidence.

[Doug Shaver]

But your statement is the standard that you are using.

I will decide what my statement was intended to convey. If you think I was trying to say anything else, you misunderstood it.

[robertb]

Why? Why isn't my tea drinking experience just as much a fact of history as any other fact?

It's an historical fact that you had the eXperience of drinking tea, not an historical fact that you actually drank tea. A difference and an important one in the context of this conversation.

[seer]

I will decide what my statement was intended to convey. If you think I was trying to say anything else, you misunderstood it.

Is your statement an objective fact or evidence based?

[seer]

It's an historical fact that you had the eXperience of drinking tea, not an historical fact that you actually drank tea. A difference and an important one in the context of this conversation.

Really? Why doesn't my experience of drinking tea prove that I actually drank tea?