[keepamovin]

Hmm, interesting point. Where we draw the line? Testimonies/memories/personal experience can certainly secure a conviction in a human court of law. This exists "in abundance" for sightings/abductions/encounters...so are we hypocrites? "Evidence is permitted If-and-only-if it conforms to our priors", or we accept the testimonial standard in play?

For me, it comes down to what you think personally. That's the discriminating factor in such an "contested" topic!

[Gys]

> Testimonies/memories/personal experience can certainly secure a conviction in a human court of law.

I am certain that if I go to the police blaming someone of something bad then even if my story is very very detailed, without any other (!) evidence the other person will not be convicted.

> Where we draw the line?

By requiring more evidence :) Just as an example: it is funny that despite camera’s being ubiquitous nowadays, all video evidence of aliens, big foot, ghosts, etc is very limited and always vague.

[keepamovin]

Let's hope so! (otherwise anyone could make up anything and accuse anyone!) But I guess we're talking about jury trials here and a preponderance of people confirming the same.

[Yizahi]

This is objectively incorrect (with the exception of maybe corrupt courts). No court will indict you on any charge based only on "Testimonies/memories/personal experience". Not only that, a more scientifically literate judges know that even if combined real evidence plus testimony, the testimony part is extremely unreliable at >1 year old, practically useless for any factual corroboration. It's just how human mind works, basic biology. Given a few year of time any person can convince themselves of a past event which never actually happened. But a person can imagine that with a lot of details and interactions, so vivid that he/she will truly believe it. It is normal for humans.

[monkellipse]

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”