Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

How do you not know what I mean...?   I've only been yapping at you about it across three threads.

If I claim that I saw a black Dodge Charger on the way home from the park today, is my witness testimony, alone, sufficient to convince you my claim is true?

If I claim that I saw a gremlin eating the wheels off of a black Dodge Charger on the way home from the park today, is my witness testimony, alone, sufficient to convince you my claim is true?

This is an easy one, RR.

Re-posting this because I don't want RR to "forget" to respond.  😏

I think that this falls more into the realm of the extraordinary claims thread, but I'll give you a quick reply.  Personally, I don't think it is right to dismiss evidence, just because it goes against my understanding or view. Or because of personal incredulity.  If it is just one person, I'm probably going to remain skeptical.   If there are a number of independent people reporting the second account, all over town, I'm certainly going to give it consideration, if there isn't reason against it.

And this is an area that is still debated by philosophers on the epistemology of testimony today.   Some siding on the rights of the receiver of the information to reject that information.  They have concerns about mistakes or the testifier's ability to deceive.  On the other side, there is a problem with justifying the dismissal of information because it goes against your experiences or beliefs without any other reason. This impedes growth and knowledge.   I obviously lean more towards the latter camp and are not a reductionist.  I suppose that it may also deal with if you are more concerned with false positives or false negatives (where would you rather be wrong)

The one thing, that I haven't seen in researching this topic, is the discussion is the inclusion of multiple independent testimonies (it normally only deals with one item of testimony).  With only a single testimony, I think I am more conservative and skeptical myself. I also think that this type of conversation takes a little bit of abstract thinking in forming principles.   Are your principles set up, to pander to what you believe, and reject opposing information, or are you willing to accept new information and possibly change your views.  What if you don't know which side the evidence is going to point to... does your reasoning still follow?