Really I mean really how can they.

[Saracen]

the "amature" witness is highly unlikely to state a car is completely dark green. therefore being no less, or more accurate than the pedantic "expert" witness.

Not what I said though. The amateur witness is not likely to think about what colour the other side is, and not likely to accurately report what they saw. It's not about them saying what the colour of the rest of the car is, especially as that's a trivial example. It's about accurately identifying what you really saw, and distinguishing it from how the brain interpreted, or remembers, what you saw.

It is sometimes, perhaps often, both useful and desirable to have "pedantic" witnesses that accurately report what they really do see, and get it right, without reporting what they thought they saw, but didn't. For instance, if reporting a crime to the police, just as accurate evidence is useful, inaccurate accounts, however well-intentioned, can be harmful and end up wasting police time, or even helping to convict the wrong person.

[Rob_B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ0Ha2p8GjI let them explain that then....

Swamp gas igniting & reflecting off a weather ballon, easy, must try harder

[banja]

Erm yes, yes you can.....

On a side note, I had the oppertunity to talk very briefly with Eugene Cernan once, the last few people I'd all overheard asking him about if the moon landings were faked, one person almost calling him a liar. So I decided to try and be witty, and asked something vauge about how he thinks the minds of conspiracists work, such as those flat earthers. Got a good laugh at of it, and he simply said, some people no matter what the evidence will choose to believe something, and chastise those who think otherwise. Its a sad truth, but look at how many people believe in Jesus not the FSM.

Jesus is considered a prophet by many religions other than Christianity, and his teachings are all very sound if you read them. Hardly a decent comparison to either tin-foil hat types who are possibly nuts, or mischievous hoaxers whose sense of humour is clearly more refined than the average forum troll baiter.

[MadduckUK]

Not what I said though. The amateur witness is not likely to think about what colour the other side is, and not likely to accurately report what they saw. It's not about them saying what the colour of the rest of the car is, especially as that's a trivial example. It's about accurately identifying what you really saw, and distinguishing it from how the brain interpreted, or remembers, what you saw.

It is sometimes, perhaps often, both useful and desirable to have "pedantic" witnesses that accurately report what they really do see, and get it right, without reporting what they thought they saw, but didn't. For instance, if reporting a crime to the police, just as accurate evidence is useful, inaccurate accounts, however well-intentioned, can be harmful and end up wasting police time, or even helping to convict the wrong person.

well now, an amature witness can become an expert witness as long as the correct questions are asked - "what colour did the car appear to you from your vantage point?" would cancel out anything the expert could provide(edit - actually no, make and model would be knowledge based, and you cant expect everyone to know everything when broadening it out from cars, distinguishing features are something i think everyone could recall if distinguishing enough, not like "it was a EG5 but had body coloured mirrors, which is strange", because that is knowledge on a specific subject. But "the door was badly dented" would be obvious). i think we need another example that places the fault strictly on the witness rather than the questioner.

is an expert witness just "you got lucky"?

[Lucio]

well now, an amature witness can become an expert witness as long as the correct questions are asked - "what colour did the car appear to you from your vantage point?" would cancel out anything the expert could provide(edit - actually no, make and model would be knowledge based, and you cant expect everyone to know everything when broadening it out from cars, distinguishing features are something i think everyone could recall if distinguishing enough, not like "it was a EG5 but had body coloured mirrors, which is strange", because that is knowledge on a specific subject. But "the door was badly dented" would be obvious). i think we need another example that places the fault strictly on the witness rather than the questioner.

is an expert witness just "you got lucky"?

You really should read the book to understand, effectively though a Witness in the fictional world is a walking video recorder when acting in a professional capacity. They're trained to give a 100% accurate, unbiased and unopinionated description of anything they see or hear. The way the ability is described in the book it goes beyond real world human ability as you or I know them (it is sci-fi after all!) and does feature humans who can teleport, breathe underwater and esp.

[TheAnimus]

Jesus is considered a prophet by many religions other than Christianity, and his teachings are all very sound if you read them. Hardly a decent comparison to either tin-foil hat types who are possibly nuts, or mischievous hoaxers whose sense of humour is clearly more refined than the average forum troll baiter.

Wow, you really did miss the point.

The FSM shapes the world that way, with his noodley tenticals, every time you see any evidence or similar its a test his noodlelyness laid down.

As such you can't possibly prove the FSM exists, so he must.

Any eveidence you do have is just the work of a noodley appendage remember!

[TheAnimus]

Erm, no I can't.

You must have seen the ships disapear below the horizon? I'm assuming you've traveled inter-continentally, felt the weather differences at the equater vs the poles.

Whilst you can't beyond all doubt, you surely can beyond all reasonable doubt!

[Fraz]

Golly. I could prove the world is ~spherical about 10 different ways before lunchtime. Presumably this is a tongue in cheek site.

PS. Did I really just use the word "golly"?

[TheAnimus]

I could prove the world is ~spherical about 10 different ways before lunchtime.

Then why not round it off with lunch at Milliways: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe!

[razer121]

No i had a read at the site, they honestly believe its true and even state that the site is not fake...shocking XD

[Dareos]

Golly. I could prove the world is ~spherical about 10 different ways before lunchtime. Presumably this is a tongue in cheek site.

PS. Did I really just use the word "golly"?

Golly is only acceptable when followed by Miss Molly, and never when followed with Wog, allegedly!

[Fraz]

Then why not round it off with lunch at Milliways: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe!

Good plan!

[banja]

Wow, you really did miss the point.

The FSM shapes the world that way, with his noodley tenticals, every time you see any evidence or similar its a test his noodlelyness laid down.

As such you can't possibly prove the FSM exists, so he must.

Any eveidence you do have is just the work of a noodley appendage remember!

Sorry, I misinterpreted. You're initial comment read to me that people who believe in Jesus must be deluded regardless of the evidence. I see now you're example was something to do with a flying spaghetti monster.

The FSM analogy works better in direct comparison to God, but Jesus as a teacher is not so great an example.

[Lucio]

It's a shame that the Flat Earth Society got hijacked by believers, the original point as I understood it was that we put too much faith in what we're told, and less about really thinking about the world

[TheAnimus]

Sorry, I misinterpreted. You're initial comment read to me that people who believe in Jesus must be deluded regardless of the evidence. I see now you're example was something to do with a flying spaghetti monster.

There is inheriently a rude suggestion to religious types, because it basically says when you have a selective observation and historic system, due to their beliefs and desires you can justify anything. The construct of the FSM is just as justifiable as Jesus is, both are highly selective and not exactly the simplest explanation.

[Brucelles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ0Ha2p8GjI let them explain that then....

Simple, it's a fish eye lens.