In the absence of corroborating evidence, I would not accept eyewitness testimony for any really important decision making, especially if it conflicts with my understanding of the way the world works. Personally, I've seen things that I know were not there. One doesn't have to be a liar or psychotic to misperceive or misinterpret what one sees.
I'm sure you are aware that every field and every profession has frauds. That is why scientists try to replicate important new discoveries, and why frauds are found.
Scientist are not nicer people or more honest. It's just that science as an institution has a built in skepticism and a tradition of expecting errors and fraud.
When someone comes up with a radical idea like cold fusion, it's not anti-science to say, "I think you've made an error. Show us your procedure so we can try to replicate your findings."
[[In the absence of corroborating evidence, I would not accept eyewitness testimony for any really important decision making, especially if it conflicts with my understanding of the way the world works.]]
Hmmm- that’s a wee bit too skeptical- simply discounting a great many independant eyewitness accounts- There are even secular eyewitness accounts confirming some miracles of Christ- but you’d want what? a complete investigation with expert witnesses? First, we’re not talking about someone losing hteir life here- not sure why the high demand you’re placing on this?
Secondly, If you’ve got the time- Read through this .pdf (Adobe Acrobat file) that talks about hte reliability of eyewitnesses, and the refutation of Humes, a pretty famous philosopher, who apparently claimed eyewitnesses couldn’t be trusted. It’s very enlightening, and not too difficult to follow- it’s a good read. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~howardd/miracles.pdf
[[When someone comes up with a radical idea like cold fusion, it’s not anti-science to say, “I think you’ve made an error. Show us your procedure so we can try to replicate your findings.”]]
It’s not? Hmmm- Seems Coyoteman doesn’t agree with you- We’re all called antiscience because we point out hte obvious errors and blatant misrepresentations when it comes to Macroevolution
Eyewitness testimony, therefore, by your own standard, not credible. If we all comported ourselves in this manner, conversation on this forum would not be possible. Now it’s time for you to exaggerate the point and deny, deny, deny.