Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

---

Evidence means literally "bringing something into view," not "things that will make others believe what you believe."  One example of possibly useful testimony is expert testimony (though this often fails in court due to unscrupulous application of credentials).  Let's say, for example, you have a coin and you want to know if it's a real Roman coin.  We could observe it in broad daylight as much as we want, but we'd never know how to interpret that visual and chemical information.  We will for sure want to consult an expert; and if there's a legal case involved, we will be forced to rely on expert testimonial.  But even then, the expert will be expected to explain in unambiguous terms WHY he knows the coin is Roman, and there must be the sense that we could follow up: buy the same equipment he uses, read books about how certain metals are affected by time and environmental conditions, and so on.  In other words, this kind of testimonial must be taken as a time-saving device, not an appeal to authority for its own sake.

Unbiased testimony about things which do not need interpretation is also reasonably useful.  For example, if someone robbed me while wearing a ski mask, and I could report his tattoos to the police, then they'd be VERY likely indeed to pick the guy up and charge him, unless there was some reason to believe that we had social connections.  The idea that some Canadian tourist just showed up in New York and started describing tattoos to the police just for something to do will be taken as much less likely than that a guy with the described tattoo mugged me.

I don't think that I understand where you disagree, with the etymology literal meaning of "bringing something into view" or perhaps you are not disagreeing. The modern dictionary definitions I gave, I would think match up with this (I believe) more figurative sourcing of the word. Or are you saying to be evidence, that you need to literally bring it into the view of a person? I would think from your examples, this is not the case. In your example of a believed roman coin, I would agree, that a non-expert, can tell you what they seen, and why they think it is a roman coin. An expert may be able to tell you more, or even be able to give information from the witness description if it is good enough.

I would also agree, that the testimony is about what was seen, heard or otherwise experienced and not the interpretation of those things. I do think that people are free to think for themselves (or perhaps not think if that be the case).

But we all know that you want to establish testimony as evidence in general because there's no physical evidence for God which isn't better interpreted in non religious terms: either as lies, or as misunderstandings of the physical world, or whatever.

But the particular kind of testimonial you want to have accepted is that of anecdote-- if enough people claim to have had certain religious experiences, then that lessens the probability that the religious claims are false, or may even support the idea that the religious claims are true.

The problem is that pretty much 100% of this testimonial is either biased or requires interpretation of experiences, or involves unqualified people making attributions about things based on their own world views.

In short, I believe you are equivocating on the many kinds of testimonials that people might offer, so that our refusal to throw out the baby with the bath water will allow you a foot in the door to present an argument which does NOT in fact meet any sensible standard of evidence that non-Christians would (or should) accept.  (Please understand that I do not mean this in an insulting way, like you are using a dirty trick.  However, I think that is the practical function of this kind of argument-- you are doing the work of getting evidence that works for you to be accepted as credible or at least acceptable by others)

I'm a little disappointed with you here. My image of you, is of someone who thinks through things, and I would have thought that you might have given me the benefit of the doubt in doing the same, rather than jumped to imagined motivations, and where you think I'm trying to go with this. I'm only looking to discuss testimony, as I find that many atheist seem to make strong objections, I find are unique to the group. I may start thinking, that as much as they bring up God in the discussion, and avoid discussion, that it is more of an issue for them, then for me. But also, I think that you are thinking of a different sense of the word testimony, sometimes used in the sense of a religious personal (not shared by others) experience. I am not; I'm talking about witness testimony as described above. If testimony is evidence, it value as evidence, and the reasoning behind these views.

---

I actually don't have any major objections to anything presented in the OP as long as he's willing to acknowledge that context matters in all scenarios involving eyewitness testimony.  I'm just not sure what his point is.

I would agree, that context matters.  For one example, I think that there is a difference, between what someone see's a distance away across a dimly lit parking lot.  Verses a few feet away, in a well lit room. The time and how well they seen whatever it was, also makes a difference. I also don't disagree, with a number of the flaws that are brought up concerning witness testimony, and the studies preformed about it.   I just don't agree, that this makes it not evidence, or makes it so unreliable as to outweigh it's strengths.

---

Testimony has to be backed up with other evidence....

You can't believe everything people tell you, unless they can back it up with something else. People lie. That's the problem with testimony.

I would agree.  I often look for corroborating evidence.  Which could include other independent witnesses.

I also think that people lying is a problem with all testimony, which may include expert testimony, or pretty much anything anyone else tells you.  Physical evidence can also lie.  Either indirectly by giving a false impression of the truth (more a problem with interpretation or hasty conclusions, than the evidence itself lying).  Or someone can place physical evidence in order to deceive.

[Ravenshire]

I just don't agree, that this makes it not evidence, or makes it so unreliable as to outweigh it's strengths.

Then you're ignoring the obvious flaws because of confirmation bias.

[LadyForCamus]

But, RR...what is it with this false dichotomy of "evidence" or "not evidence?" Why isn't, "perhaps reasonable to accept as sufficient evidence for some claims, but not others," a rational option to you? Is it because then you have no choice but to talk about the fact that testimony's value as evidence is fully intertwined with the nature of the claim?

You're trying to tease out two concepts as though one follows the other in chronological order of discussion (first establish if testimony is evidence, then talk about various claims). These concepts don't exist in separate vacuums in that way. They are synergistic in nature, and so it makes no logical sense to talk about them like they're not. Unless you have an agenda, ofc...

[RoadRunner79]

I just don't agree, that this makes it not evidence, or makes it so unreliable as to outweigh it's strengths.

Then you're ignoring the obvious flaws because of confirmation bias.

I agree with much in your video.  I agree with the issues of identifying a stranger (although I do think that most of the time, you will get good representation) that even if they feel certain, that is not enough.   I also agree, with the studies on memory, and details.  That our memory is not like a perfect recall system, and there may be details we miss, or remember inaccurately.  I agree that certain methods of interrogation, do not take the testimony, but can interject aspects into it, and we should be cautious of this. 

I believe that I agreed to these things before as well; so I don't know what you think, that I am "ignoring, because of confirmation bias"  However, I also think that there are a number of things, that are verified by witness testimony.  I believe that our perception, memory, and recollection of reality for the most part is representative of reality (even if some details may become blurry).  How many of your beliefs are based on either these things, or if you didn't experience them personally, then the testimony of others? 

I do think that it is interesting, in the video, that given what he had shown about the lighting conditions, that everyone picked the same person.  I think that there must be more to the story about how this happened.   From what he shown, they didn't really see anything to go on. I also notice that he is also basing a large part of his analysis on other parts their testimony.  I would agree, that this is a case, where they didn't properly test their witnesses and relied too much on identification of a stranger.  I don't think it was investigated well.  This is all of course given, that I take any of your expert's testimony as evidence for what he was saying.

[Minimalist]

We all know that RR is full of shit.

What do you suppose RR will make of this "eye-witness testimony?"

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...1348,020:7

Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them,3 and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases.

Did Titus Flavius Vespasianus pull off these healing miracles, RR?  If not, why not?  In this case we even know the name of the historian writing it - which cannot be said for your bullshit.
Caius Suetonius Tranquillus.

[Losty]

I saw an invisible dragon in my garage today when I got home.

Well, slap my ass and call me Suzie!  Dragons are real!

Get over my knee, Suzie

[Redbeard The Pink]

I hereby testify that there are no gods.

Check mate, theists.

[RoadRunner79]

But, RR...what is it with this false dichotomy of "evidence" or "not evidence?"  Why isn't, "perhaps reasonable to accept as sufficient evidence for some claims, but not others," a rational option to you?   Is it because then you have no choice but to talk about the fact that testimony's value as evidence is fully intertwined with the nature of the claim?

You're trying to tease out two concepts as though one follows the other in chronological order of discussion (first establish if testimony is evidence, then talk about various claims).  These concepts don't exist in separate vacuums in that way.  They are synergistic in nature, and so it makes no logical sense to talk about them like they're not. Unless you have an agenda, ofc...

It's not a false dichotomy.  The choice is A or !A, which is the law of identity.  Now if you mean, that all testimony is not evidence, or not good evidence.  Then I agree, and I think that can be discussed as well.  I also think that we can have evidence in support of contradictory claims although both conclusions cannot both be true at the same time in the same way.  

As to your last paragraph would this apply to anything that is considered evidence?  That we cannot talk about it being evidence, until we discuss what it is evidence for.  Do we decide what is true by the evidence, or what is evidence, by what we believe is true?   I believe it is the former.

[KevinM1]

Oh shit, it works that way?

I testify that Mila Kunis and Emma Stone are way into me. Like whoa.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again with this? Has something changed since last time? Wait, wait..let me check.

Nope.