Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

If testimony is the only "evidence" of something...then the specifics of what's contained in the claim simply are not in evidence.  As so many examples have shown..even the simplest and most uncontroversial claim does not provide evidence for the accuracy of it;s own contents.

I claimed to eat a cheeseburger...but nothing in my claim will help you to establish whether or not I ate a cheeseburger - or even whether or not cheeseburgers -exist-.

Another claimed to have had a lunchdate with a man named John.  Nothing in the claim helps to establish that such a lunchdate ever took place, that there is a man named john, or that the claimant knows a john, let alone had a lunchdate with john....or that they even eat lunch.........ever.

I agree. Words are not capable of conveying truth value simply because they were asserted. So the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record plus the context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion. It is the inseparable package of these things together that form "evidence".

---

Most of the time you don't get physical evidence--especially for events. So, the best evidence possible is often going to be testimonial evidence.

So because you have no evidence to support you, you demand we accept what are at best third hand retellings of tall tales as accurate accounts of reality? Not going to happen, untl you accept that Cú Chulainn killed Ferdiad by throwing the Gae Bolga at him using his foot as being equally true.

When I have I ever given the impression that I "demand" anything from you other than to be accurate? One could make that a full time job on this forum.