Yes, not all testimonies are equal. Some are weaker and some are stronger than others. And some people will lie, to get what they want. It's not about the truth, but about the results or conclusion (and they will normally have some kind of justification for it). We cannot believe every claim, but then I do not think it is right, to decide before hand, and irregardless of the evidence, what is believable or not. This is circular and not beneficial to finding the truth (it's simply restating what you believed a priori).
Sometimes the evidence may be inconclusive. It either does not provide enough of a picture of what occurred, or is not collaborated enough to rationally deduce what had occurred. This can be true of both physical or forensic evidence, as well as testimony. With this, we can remain skeptical (not making a claim either for or against). Or we may believe that an opposing claim is better supported and contrary to the given testimony, in which case I think it is reasonable to deny the opposing claim.
Many aspects of life (history) are not repeatable, and even if you can repeat something similar, it does not necessarily provide evidence, that it occurred that way before. It is wrong to require scientific repeatability to test claims outside of the category of science.
Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others. I am looking at those who agree, and those who claim evidence contrary to the claim (others who can verify or falsify the claim). I look at the detail provided, and those who best explain why the believe, rather than just the conclusion. I also look for details that provide that they are knowledgeable and/or show they are capable of testifying to the observation. I do expect testimony to have reasonable differences, because of the reasons discussed. There are going to be different perspectives, and focuses; as well as some inaccuracies do to the limitations of memory talked about. But it should also verify and collaborate the general claims and events. Someone had mentioned a claim of a person being able to levitate. And yes; this is difficult to believe (I am skeptical of the claim from the start). However, if a large number of independent people, and even professional investigators all claim that they have verified and tested the claims, that it is not a trick and the person really can levitate at any place or time (eliminating prior setup). And if the claims of any doubters was weak, then I am going to believe the claim (at least tentatively). Even though it goes against my experience and believes of what is ordinary, I'm going to consider the evidence good, that this did occur. And even if it only happened once, if the witnesses are able to verify the claim to a proper degree, then I am going to tend to go with the evidence.
Sometimes the evidence may be inconclusive. It either does not provide enough of a picture of what occurred, or is not collaborated enough to rationally deduce what had occurred. This can be true of both physical or forensic evidence, as well as testimony. With this, we can remain skeptical (not making a claim either for or against). Or we may believe that an opposing claim is better supported and contrary to the given testimony, in which case I think it is reasonable to deny the opposing claim.
Many aspects of life (history) are not repeatable, and even if you can repeat something similar, it does not necessarily provide evidence, that it occurred that way before. It is wrong to require scientific repeatability to test claims outside of the category of science.
Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others. I am looking at those who agree, and those who claim evidence contrary to the claim (others who can verify or falsify the claim). I look at the detail provided, and those who best explain why the believe, rather than just the conclusion. I also look for details that provide that they are knowledgeable and/or show they are capable of testifying to the observation. I do expect testimony to have reasonable differences, because of the reasons discussed. There are going to be different perspectives, and focuses; as well as some inaccuracies do to the limitations of memory talked about. But it should also verify and collaborate the general claims and events. Someone had mentioned a claim of a person being able to levitate. And yes; this is difficult to believe (I am skeptical of the claim from the start). However, if a large number of independent people, and even professional investigators all claim that they have verified and tested the claims, that it is not a trick and the person really can levitate at any place or time (eliminating prior setup). And if the claims of any doubters was weak, then I am going to believe the claim (at least tentatively). Even though it goes against my experience and believes of what is ordinary, I'm going to consider the evidence good, that this did occur. And even if it only happened once, if the witnesses are able to verify the claim to a proper degree, then I am going to tend to go with the evidence.
