Quote: Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can we agree that it is possible for others to be "fooled", and that they will not be able to distinguish the times they are being fooled from the times they are not? I suppose that can happen on some occasions with respect to some experiences or some people. I don't think it's particularly meaningful, however. There's no doubt that observations can be flawed or unreliable. There's no doubt that DBT's are not perfect either. I don't think that makes either type of evidence completely invalid on the issue of audible differences. Would you say it's not reasonable to put people in jail based on eyewitness testimony when we know it can be unreliable? We accept and rely upon imperfect evidence all the time, both in the courtroom and in our daily lives.