Peterson tries, and fails, to bolster the idea of eye witness testimony

[I Have Questions]

Here is the article...

An apparently atheistic (or, at least, agnostic) online critic of the claims of the Restoration—for reasons of my own, I’ll call him Isaac—makes the following argument in the form of a logical syllogism:

Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Of course, what Isaac is implicitly suggesting, is that the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses is of little or no real value. If we buy his argument, the witnesses provide no real evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Nor do they offer any real support for the existence of the plates from which it was supposedly translated.

Isaac’s syllogism is logically valid, which means that its conclusion really does follow from its premises.

Peterson knows my moniker is 'I Have Questions', not 'Isaac'. So why not use the proper poster identity?

Here is Peterson's attempt at undermining the logic of syllogism...

If you don’t already sense that something is wrong with Isaac’s reasoning, please permit me to offer some analogous arguments for the sake of discussion and to help to illustrate the problem:

Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence that Frankie stole Johnny’s bicycle is that three eyewitnesses testify to having seen him do it.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence that Frankie stole Johnny’s bicycle is notoriously unreliable.

So, in this instance, a critic might claim that the jury must acquit. But wouldn’t we rebel at such a claim? If three solid and sane observers who are possessed of normally functioning senses saw Frankie steal Johnny’s bicycle, isn’t that pretty strong evidence that Frankie did, in fact, steal the bike? Barring some powerful reason to the contrary, doesn’t it seem sufficient to warrant a conviction?

Well no, the studies and data show that it is NOT pretty strong evidence that Frankie did, in fact, steal the bike. Further, if we develop Peterson's scenario the way the Book of Mormon witnesses claim things happened - firstly, the person giving the account of who saw what is Johnny himself, nobody else has seen any bike, and most independent people in the neighbourhood report that they have never seen Johnny with a bike. Further, Johnny claims an angel gave him the bike, and that nobody can now locate the bike that Frankie allegedly stole because an angel from heaven has taken the bike back. One of the three eyewitnesses to the alleged theft of the angel-given bike has also changed his story a little when asked directly, rather than Johnny relating what that eye witness thinks he saw. He is now saying he only saw the alleged theft of the bike through "his spiritual eyes". All 3 of the witnesses are related to Johnny.

Now, are those 3 witnesses as solid as Peterson wants to make them seem? He tries again...

So let’s try another example:

Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence that Jones set fire to Brown’s car is that eleven eyewitnesses say that they saw him do precisely that.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence that Jones set fire to Brown’s car is notoriously unreliable.

Confronted with such a defense argument, would many jurors agree that there is no serious evidence for the accusation that Jones set fire to Brown’s car? I doubt it. Eleven eyewitnesses would seem to be quite convincing evidence. More than enough to make the case.

But once again he deliberate misleads his audience by only mentioning part of the parallel. What if there was no other evidence of a burning car other than what Brown claims his 11 friends and family saw? What if no burnt out car is anywhere to be found? What if nobody in the neighbourhood had ever seen Brown with a car? What if Jones and the jury demand to see the evidence of the burnt out car and Brown and his 11 witnesses cannot provide one shred of evidence that one existed? What if no dealer receipt can be provided for the car because Brown claims he was given it by an angel, and then, after it was burnt out by Jones that same angel took it all away again? What if some of the witnesses started saying they'd only seen the alleged arson attack through spiritual eyes whilst being coerced into praying that a burnt out car existed by Brown himself? Confronted with all the relevant information about the situation would many jurors agree that there is no serious accusation that Jones set fire to Brown's car? You're damn right many jurors would agree.

He tried a third example to try and convince his readers that my logic is flawed...

So let’s construct another argument that is analogous to the one from Isaac with which we began:

Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence that Elmo wore a propeller beanie and leopard-skin pants to the board meeting is that seventeen eyewitnesses say that they saw him at the board meeting wearing a propeller beanie and leopard-skin pants.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence that Elmo wore a propeller beanie and leopard-skin pants to the board meeting is notoriously unreliable.

It may seem very unlikely that anybody would attend a board meeting in such strange clothing. Still, I can’t imagine that many people would flatly dismiss the testimony of seventeen eyewitnesses in the board meeting who saw Elmo there, wearing a propeller beanie and leopard-skin pants. I can’t imagine anyone saying that there was simply no good reason to believe that he did it.

Once again he (deliberately) fails to give a proper parallel. In the above scenario, what if nobody else in the building had seen Elmo in a propeller beanie and leopard skin pants? What if CCTV showed that Elmo hadn't even been in the building? What if the people claiming Elmo wore such a thing claimed that they saw him wearing that attire with their spiritual eyes whilst praying?

The avoidance of providing a complete parallel context for his examples, the fact he keeps repeating the cheap trick through the article time after time, suggests that's the best he's got. But wait, he gives yet another example...

To be sound, the conclusion not only needs to flow from the premises but the premises must both be true. Consider this obviously unsound argument:

Premise 1. All mountains are in Switzerland.
Premise 2. Mount Everest is a mountain.
Conclusion. Therefore, Mount Everest is in Switzerland.

The argument is logically valid, but the conclusion is plainly false. How can that be? In this case, the conclusion is false because the first premise is not true. Many mountains are undeniably located outside of Switzerland.

What? How is that a valid disputation of the logical conclusion that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable? It's nonsense. Obviously. Is he trying to bolster the word count because he's got nothing else?

Let’s return now to Isaac’s contention that the witness testimonies fail to provide solid evidence for the Book of Mormon. It went as follows:

Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.

Now, it so happens that I’m inclined to agree with Premise 2. I certainly think that the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses constitute very strong evidence. And yet I object to Isaac’s conclusion. But how can I object if his syllogism is valid?

The problem with Isaac’s argument lies in its first premise. Am I saying that eyewitness testimony is always dependable? Of course not. But Isaac’s description of it as “notoriously unreliable” is unnuanced and overly broad, and Isaac himself would surely reject such a dismissal if he had no personal interest or agenda at stake.

Ah, so his issues lies with the data from all the studies. I'm sure we can look forward to Dan providing some proper conflicting data that shows eye witness testimony is reliable...

I think that we can readily see that if we imagine a situation to which Isaac’s religious opinion is irrelevant. Let’s say that, instead of setting Brown’s car on fire, Jones has taken a sledgehammer to Isaac’s own car—and that not only Isaac but seventeen of Isaac’s neighbors have watched Jones as he methodically smashes its windows, destroys its radiator, and, in a final burst of enthusiasm, slits its tires. An investigating policeman comes and takes careful notes from all eighteen eyewitnesses. They are clearly intelligent observers. They all agree on what they saw. Then, announcing that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, the policeman declines to arrest Jones. There is, he says, no credible evidence that Jones destroyed Isaac’s car. How patient would Isaac be with that? How would you react?

Nope, I was wrong. We get another silly and deliberately misleading example. The credible evidence that Jones has damaged my car would be...wait for it...the damaged car. Not a claimed damaged car that some angel had miraculously provided and then taken away. Not a car that nobody outside of those witnesses has ever seen. No car can be found on my Ring Doorbell video, no ANPR has ever recorded my car passing it. In short, the only evidence for a car, let alone a damaged on is my statement, and my statement that my friends and relatives support what I claim. Then what would the policeman do?

Dan has really jumped the shark on this one. It's ridiculous and deliberately misleading scenario after ridiculous and deliberately misleading scenario. But he's not finished with his smoke and mirror attempt at hiding the elephant...

In recent decades, a great deal of research has been conducted on the limitations of human perception and memory, and this has, quite properly, made us wary of the fallibility of witnesses. But courts have never accepted eyewitness testimony without challenges and cross-examination. No competent court or historian has ever simply assumed that eyewitness testimony is correct—not even in cases where the sanity, honesty, and sincerity of a witness is beyond reasonable dispute. Rather, such testimony must be evaluated with caution. And this is all the more obviously necessary when supremely important matters hinge upon it (e.g., the life of a defendant or the choice of a religious faith and worldview). But the blanket dismissal of eyewitness testimony is every bit as incautious and extreme as the uncritical acceptance of it.

He's deliberately missing off that courts and juries are provided with tangible evidence.

Blanket dismissals of the Book of Mormon witnesses can claim neither the support of modern psychological science nor even that of common sense.

Yes they can. Common sense dictates that when someone, or a group of related someones, make an extraordinary claim about something upon which your life supposedly depends, you should ask for more than just what they say. Especially when they start talking about angels removing the evidence. I would like to see Dan buy a car off someone who doesn't have a car to show him, doesn't have a dealership with others cars, and who can only provide statements of support for the car from a small number of people to whom he is related and in a close friendship group with, and who all have a vested interest in Dan buying the alleged car. Under those circumstances does Dan find those witnesses credible? Does Dan hand over the cash?

It's a very insubstantial article by Peterson, which contains no data, nor studies that offer any contrary argument to my logical syllogism. And he's spent months thinking about a proper response. If this is the best he's got in defence of what he himself claims is the best evidence for The Book of Mormon, well...the game's over.

Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
There is a mountain of data to support this. The studies further show that when a single influential figure coordinates eye witness testimony (as was the case for the witnesses to the gold plates) then "notoriously unreliable" because "guaranteed to be wrong'.

Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Dan clearly agrees with this one.

Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
This is therefore inescapable. And Dan knows it which is why he could only resort to silly and childish misdirection.

What a pathetic effort.

[Abaddon]

That mental gymnastics routine earns a 10.0 from this judge; he stuck the landing so well that I can only see the medal around his neck with my spiritual eyes.

[drumdude]

If he makes up a name for you, his followers will have a harder time finding rebuttals like this.

[Gadianton]

Why doesn’t he just say he’s questioning the first premise? He’s just claiming that the eyewitness were reliable. If the jury thought they were unreliable why would he rebel against that?

I would think he’d agree with ihq. When he first encountered the Spaulding witnesses, I’ll bet his first thought was ihq premise 1.

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m a little surprised to see him skulking back to this topic. He took quite a beating on the issue of “witness testimony” over his own alleged witnessing of the 2nd Watson Letter…. Does he really want to reopen this discussion?

[Moksha]

Eyewitness testimony touting the reliability of the Edsel from the Ford Edsel sales team. Dr. Peterson would not find fault with this.

Dr. Peterson witnessed Watson's imprimatur on the 2nd fax with his apologetic eyes.

[Gadianton]

I’m a little surprised to see him skulking back to this topic. He took quite a beating on the issue of “witness testimony” over his own alleged witnessing of the 2nd Watson Letter…. Does he really want to reopen this discussion?

Devastating.

[Kishkumen]

Dead witnesses can’t be cross-examined.

[Physics Guy]

"Notoriously unreliable" does not mean "utterly worthless". Kitchen string is good for tying up roasts, but not for bungee jumping or suspension bridges. So just because eyewitness testimony can be decisive in some cases doesn't mean that it is strong enough to make the case for the Book of Mormon.

That's not even just because most people are strongly biased against believing in angels or miraculous translations. Even if the Mormon witnesses had merely been attesting that Joseph Smith had truly found his great-grandfather's old title deed to a piece of land somewhere, which would be unusual but perfectly possible, the witnesses would be unconvincing if the original deed that had supposedly been discovered was mysteriously lost, leaving only a copy that Smith allegedly made.

In that alternative scenario, some people might be willing to give Smith the benefit of the doubt, enough to believe that he maybe could have had an old document of some kind at some point, or that his great-grandfather might have had some kind of claim to some land somewhere, but nobody would believe strongly enough in the deed to actually give Smith the land that he was claiming. And that's about the limit of the reliability of eyewitness testimony in a case like this. It is by no means reliable enough to establish the miraculous case for the Book of Mormon.

[malkie]

Dead witnesses can’t be cross-examined.

For "spiritual eyes" witnesses, perhaps Ouija board cross examination would be appropriate?