eyewitness testimony is the most error prone and unreliable forms of evidence.
Really? While some errors do occure, to state it is the ‘most error prone’ is inferring that it can’t be trusted at all apparently? Is that what you’re suggesting?
“While some errors do occur, to state it is the ‘most error prone’ is inferring that it can’t be trusted at all apparently”
Wrong.
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."