Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

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...

Full stop.  I'm not doing this dance with you again, RR.  If you want to talk about testimony you have to be willing to talk about the full spectrum of the nature of claims people often testify to. The two concepts are fully intertwined.  Arbitrarily separating them out because it suits your...we'll say...particular needs, is dishonest.  End of story.

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.

Just to clarify...you're going to give consideration to the claim that gremlins were eating the wheels off of a car?  Or do you mean you're going to consider that people seem to have witnessed  something peculiar, and perhaps wait for further evidence before you come to a conclusion?  By all means, if your answer is the former, don't be ashamed.  You've come this far.

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)

Please, RR.  If you want to talk about the philosophy and epistemology of testimony, you should make a separate thread for it.  😏

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?

Isn't this a question you should be asking your self?  

If you don't know which side the evidence is going to point to... does your reasoning still follow?

What would be sufficient evidence to convince you that gremlins exist, and one was seen eating the tires of a Dodge Charger?  Ten witnesses?  Twenty?  Twenty thousand?  Would twenty thousand people's testimony convince you gremlins are real?  

I have never witnessed such elaborate tap dancing in my life