You repeat this argument that eyewitnesses can be mistaken so they are mistaken over and over – even when it has been pointed out to you many times that just because eyewitnesses can be mistaken, does not mean that they are mistaken.
Each case must be assessed on its own merits. The perceptual and cognitive factors that lead to misperceptions are well documented. We can examine each case to see if any of those factors might have played a role. If such factors are present that would indicate that the report is unreliable, then we call the case for precisely what it then is – unreliable and therefore possibly a case of misinterpretation. If however it is determined that those factors have not played a significant role (or indeed there are converging and independent lines of evidence) – then we can reasonably assess the descriptive characteristics of that case for what it might be showing us.
Quite simply, each case must be assessed on its own merits and we cannot therefore simply apply a blanket generalisation that just because it is possible for eyewitnesses to be in error, then therefore they are (or are likely to have been) in error in any specific case under examination.
Now if you think that is not a reasonable counter to your own argument, then of course you will be able to point out the reasons why you hold that belief. Merely ignoring that refutation of your own argument, to later repeat (and repeat and repeat) the same old line – as if it did not have a counterargument - is disingenuous.
Have you any reasons to reject my counter to your argument – or do you just maintain your rejection as a faith-based belief? In other words, can you demonstrate by evidence or logical argument that you are not simply indulging in “wishful thinking”?
