4 ms·
Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence. 'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence.
'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.
- woodruffw 4y agoThe existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc. In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoI responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.
- growse 4y agoThe problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoCircumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.