From this thread here at the request of others, I am giving my reasons for why testimony is evidence.
To start, I would like to define the terms.
Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. [OD] If you look up evidence in various dictionaries [MW] [CD] You will get a number of definitions which equate that which indicates that something is true. You will also see a number of examples, and many of which will include "testimony" listed under evidence. I chose the above, because; we are discussing testimony and it seems circular, to include that in the definition. Also I find it to be more descriptive of what evidence is (rather than what is evidence).
Testimony: Dictionaries seem to be worse in the case of "testimony" [MW][OD] with giving examples, rather than what I feel is a true definition. Many offer examples involving a court room, and someone being sworn in. And in a circular fashion, the definition of "testimony", often then refers back to "evidence" From previous studies, I have liked the definitions found in discussion of the epistemology of testimony such as here and the definition that I am using, is that "testimony" is the transfer of knowledge from one person to another with the assertion that this information is true (this may be written or spoken). Also, speaking specifically about witness testimony, which is testimony concerning something that the testifier either seen or otherwise experienced and then passes this information on to another.
At this point, at it's base, I think that witness testimony by it's definition is evidence. It is a transfer of knowledge (information) from one person who experienced some thing, so that a another person (who did not witness it personally), to indicate that a belief of proposition is valid. I do think that this it is the normative view, that testimony is evidence. If you look at the definitions which I referenced, each often includes the other. In addition at least in the U.S. this is the case, as I previously posted a lawyers Q&A site, as evidence for testimony here and here This includes a number of people who have made it their life's work to practice and study the law. Some as I think any good lawyer should avoid answering, citing that they cannot make a determination without more details. However the majority strongly state that testimony is evidence, and that it can be the only evidence to convict someone.
While I think that any changes in regard to the nature of testimony as evidence are fairly recent, it is possible that I am basing my experience in the U.S. which would differ in another location and culture. Also, I think that the question as I am posing it, is more if testimony should be evidence, rather than whether for your particular location it is currently considered so or not.
In opposition to testimony as evidence, the arguments are that it has flaws or vulnerabilities. And I'm certain that we will get to discussing these in more detail as people bring them up. I think that anything involving humans, will have flaws and mistakes. It is part of our nature. Concerning witness testimony, I generally view these in two categories. Those that are common to all testimony be it witness testimony, expert testimony, the testimony of a scientist, or historian or other person of authority. The other category, involves those things involved with a person witnessing something and recalling that information for future use. I think that it is the burden of those agaisnt testimony as evidence to show that these flaws make it unreasonable for it to be used as evidence.
With the motive of conserving time and wasted energy, this time around I want to be up front and directly state, that I don't think that all testimony is good, or that everything should be believed as true. It's not just a black and white issue. I think that we should test our witnesses, look for corroborating evidence even in the form other independent testimony. Also as evidence; what was witnessed, and testified to; depends on how much the information indicates that the proposition is true. Testimony, may be true, but not very useful in making one's case for various reasons. I also think that we should take into consideration any reason to doubt the testimony of an individual as well as evidence for the opposing case. As well, my focus in more on the general principles involved concerning witness testimony, rather than any specific case. As such, I will likely examine and test any reasoning given; in other contexts.
To start, I would like to define the terms.
Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. [OD] If you look up evidence in various dictionaries [MW] [CD] You will get a number of definitions which equate that which indicates that something is true. You will also see a number of examples, and many of which will include "testimony" listed under evidence. I chose the above, because; we are discussing testimony and it seems circular, to include that in the definition. Also I find it to be more descriptive of what evidence is (rather than what is evidence).
Testimony: Dictionaries seem to be worse in the case of "testimony" [MW][OD] with giving examples, rather than what I feel is a true definition. Many offer examples involving a court room, and someone being sworn in. And in a circular fashion, the definition of "testimony", often then refers back to "evidence" From previous studies, I have liked the definitions found in discussion of the epistemology of testimony such as here and the definition that I am using, is that "testimony" is the transfer of knowledge from one person to another with the assertion that this information is true (this may be written or spoken). Also, speaking specifically about witness testimony, which is testimony concerning something that the testifier either seen or otherwise experienced and then passes this information on to another.
At this point, at it's base, I think that witness testimony by it's definition is evidence. It is a transfer of knowledge (information) from one person who experienced some thing, so that a another person (who did not witness it personally), to indicate that a belief of proposition is valid. I do think that this it is the normative view, that testimony is evidence. If you look at the definitions which I referenced, each often includes the other. In addition at least in the U.S. this is the case, as I previously posted a lawyers Q&A site, as evidence for testimony here and here This includes a number of people who have made it their life's work to practice and study the law. Some as I think any good lawyer should avoid answering, citing that they cannot make a determination without more details. However the majority strongly state that testimony is evidence, and that it can be the only evidence to convict someone.
While I think that any changes in regard to the nature of testimony as evidence are fairly recent, it is possible that I am basing my experience in the U.S. which would differ in another location and culture. Also, I think that the question as I am posing it, is more if testimony should be evidence, rather than whether for your particular location it is currently considered so or not.
In opposition to testimony as evidence, the arguments are that it has flaws or vulnerabilities. And I'm certain that we will get to discussing these in more detail as people bring them up. I think that anything involving humans, will have flaws and mistakes. It is part of our nature. Concerning witness testimony, I generally view these in two categories. Those that are common to all testimony be it witness testimony, expert testimony, the testimony of a scientist, or historian or other person of authority. The other category, involves those things involved with a person witnessing something and recalling that information for future use. I think that it is the burden of those agaisnt testimony as evidence to show that these flaws make it unreasonable for it to be used as evidence.
With the motive of conserving time and wasted energy, this time around I want to be up front and directly state, that I don't think that all testimony is good, or that everything should be believed as true. It's not just a black and white issue. I think that we should test our witnesses, look for corroborating evidence even in the form other independent testimony. Also as evidence; what was witnessed, and testified to; depends on how much the information indicates that the proposition is true. Testimony, may be true, but not very useful in making one's case for various reasons. I also think that we should take into consideration any reason to doubt the testimony of an individual as well as evidence for the opposing case. As well, my focus in more on the general principles involved concerning witness testimony, rather than any specific case. As such, I will likely examine and test any reasoning given; in other contexts.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
Give it back! It's MINE! There is only one, is how I know! I swear it!
