Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

The billions of human actions, interactions, and conversations that do not have a lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time...that happen every minute of the day.

If they don't have a lasting or meaningful effect, why in the fuck would anyone care about testimony for them? Further, why would anyone even question them? Good old christer dodge. As us ignoring the first half of my post. Are your standards of evidence so incredibly low that even you care not to defend them?

Read more carefully. I said "lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time". Each of these phrases carry meaning. What they clearly do not mean is:

1. that the actions, interactions, and conversions were not meaningful--they could could be very meaningful and could contain very important truth of a matter. 
2. that the actions, interactions, and conversations did not have an effect on the physical world--only that they "could not be examined at a later time"

Regarding the first half of your post, this is a general discussion on testimony as evidence and not on a particular body of evidence--that would be a whole different topic in a different sub-forum.

[Mister Agenda]

What I find paticularly interesting here, is the number of criticisms which state I am ignoring the evidence, which comes in the form of testimony, when the same people are arguing that I shouldn't  accept testimony as evidence. The psychology and logical abilities  of some people is fascinating!

What I find particularly interesting here is the degree to which you seem to be too dim to grasp the point that you not accepting testimony as evidence IS the point. I'm very interested in hearing an alternative explanation where this has not actually escaped you AND you're not being dishonest in pretending not to comprehend it.

I'll accept 'English is not my first language' or 'I am on the autistic spectrum' as under the category of reasonable alternative explanation'.

---

Right. So testimony alone is at best unsafe on which to draw a conclusion.

I've always maintained, that I think a single point to evidence is questionable (especially with physical evidence which is usually indirect evidence).

If you are reasoning, that if evidence cannot stand alone, then it is unsafe to draw a conclusion from, I don't think that your conclusion follows from the reasoning.

There are tens of thousands of eyewitness testimonials that the sun behaved strangely over Portugal one day. That's a lot of points of evidence. Do you accept that testimony? If you reject it, does the Catholic nature and implications of the testimony have anything to do with your assessment?

[Anomalocaris]

If they don't have a lasting or meaningful effect, why in the fuck would anyone care about testimony for them? Further, why would anyone even question them? Good old christer dodge. As us ignoring the first half of my post. Are your standards of evidence so incredibly low that even you care not to defend them?

Read more carefully. I said "lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time". Each of these phrases carry meaning. What they clearly do not mean is:

1. that the actions, interactions, and conversions were not meaningful--they could could be very meaningful and could contain very important truth of a matter. 
2. that the actions, interactions, and conversations did not have an effect on the physical world--only that they "could not be examined at a later time"

Regarding the first half of your post, this is a general discussion on testimony as evidence and not on a particular body of evidence--that would be a whole different topic in a different sub-forum.

Again, In principle, nothing happens, no action, interaction, or conversation could have effects that could not be examined at a later time. Effects that could not be examined at later time is information lost. Physics says no information once created is ever lost. Now it might be very difficult and costly to interpret the information, but it is there. Your speech is sound that propagate as pressure waves in the air, and by examining the current movement of every air molecule, and all the ways energy is added to and removed from the air, you can in principle trace backwards the movement of air in minute granularity until you've reconstructed the past pressure pulses that was your speech. Your past speech is in principle examinable in the form of the current behavior of all the Molecules that once carried the pressure pulses that carried your speech.
Yes, it is difficult. That's why we have tape recorders to record the sound and not mega-ultra computers to reconstruct the sound. But it is in principle possible.

I don't believe you are capable of saying anything important, so I won;t even bother with a tape recorder. And I think even you agree that you have nothing worthy of time on a supercomputer to recover the information to verify or reconstruct.

But if you think you have information on something so heavenshaking, so to speak, as indications of an entity so kind as to create you and threaten you with eternal torment, you ought to want to welcome as much effort and time and resource as it takes to confirm or deny whether it was real, or it was a lie. Don't you?

Why are you so afraid it is a lie that you would not even discuss the possibility of how to verify it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe I DO have a point, and I'm not being a dick for no reason.  I'm being a dick because it's the most concise way to make obvious what should already BE obvious.

You could just as easily have said that Judas was the real hero or something like that. Either way it's not like I've never been a complete ass so I cannot fault you too much for using hyperbole now and then. You're one of my favorite members and I hate to see you start treating believers with contempt like so many do. Roadrunner has been taking the high road on this one.

Now even if this is a general conversation about testimony, everyone knows that tacitly we are talking about the NT accounts of Jesus Christ. It is a legitimate question for skeptic to ask if Christians would accept the veracity of testimony about other people and events using the same standard. I can imagine that some do and others don't. Personally, I'm a bit more open to so-called paranormal stuff based largely on testimonials but only to a point. I think psi is probably a real but very low-bandwidth with minimal physical effects like uncanny premonitions and synchronicity. I don't go for the dramatic stuff like MK Ultra, etc. I think alien abductions are a real phenomena but I don't think anyone knows what they actually are or what they mean. Probably not nuts-and-bolts spaceships in cahoots with the CIA but more than just hallucinations. I also think NDE's do suggest some kind of after-death survival but I don't think that necessarily support all the mystical or religious interpretations about them. Maybe they are just a short term afterglow. None of these necessarily have anything at all to do with whether or not God exists. There is value to having a range of skepticism. To much or too little and we wouldn't learn anything. I don't see why it is necessary to always seek signs of nefarious ulterior motives in people with different degrees of skepticism. I'm not saying you do but there are AF member that always do just that and then times when even the best fall into that trap.

[Ravenshire]

If they don't have a lasting or meaningful effect, why in the fuck would anyone care about testimony for them? Further, why would anyone even question them? Good old christer dodge. As us ignoring the first half of my post. Are your standards of evidence so incredibly low that even you care not to defend them?

Read more carefully. I said "lasting or meaningful effect on the physical world that could be examined at a later time". Each of these phrases carry meaning. What they clearly do not mean is:

1. that the actions, interactions, and conversions were not meaningful--they could could be very meaningful and could contain very important truth of a matter. 
2. that the actions, interactions, and conversations did not have an effect on the physical world--only that they "could not be examined at a later time"

Regarding the first half of your post, this is a general discussion on testimony as evidence and not on a particular body of evidence--that would be a whole different topic in a different sub-forum.

If you can dodge a question, you can dodge a ball...

You're arguing semantics. If ther are no lasting or meaningful effects on the world, no one will give a shit if the event even happened.

Keep spinning and dodging. If you practice enough, you may wind up in The Ocho.

[TheBeardedDude]

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.

Testimony might be sufficient evidence of what you believe, but testimony alone is not evidence that what you believe is true.

People who claim to have been abducted by aliens point to their testimony as evidence. It is evidence that they believe they were abducted, but do you believe that they actually were?

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ok...I think we're still missing a huge chunk of this conversation.

RR, you clearly think that we should be able to accept somebody's testimony as evidence of something you believe. Otherwise we wouldn't be getting 20 pages of arguing over whether "testimony in general" counts as strong evidence.

So what testimony are you advocating for? What belief are you so desperate to bolster?

[brewer]

Superman is real. People have seen him and told me. They tell of miracles and saving mankind, defeating evil. There are books written about him that contain his actual words and deeds. Music, plays and movies have been made about him. He has houses all across the world where you can go to hear/buy his words. 

This is all true.

[Minimalist]

RR, you clearly think that we should be able to accept somebody's testimony as evidence of something you believe.

RR has two problems.  He is trying to equate statements scribbled down in old, largely anonymous or pseudoepigraphical books as "testimony."  Thus he is susceptible when someone comes along and says "I have an invisible dragon in my garage" because that is as valid a statement as paul and his 500 witnesses bullshit (1 Cor 15:6).

Second, when confronted with a miracle story from another culture he suddenly gets defensive and says he has to "check it out" presumably with a level of scrutiny he would never apply to his own holy horseshit.

RR is merely indulging in Special Pleading.  He is saying "my bullshit is real but not that of anyone else."

[LadyForCamus]

Ok...I think we're still missing a huge chunk of this conversation.

RR, you clearly think that we should be able to accept somebody's testimony as evidence of something you believe. Otherwise we wouldn't be getting 20 pages of arguing over whether "testimony in general" counts as strong evidence.

So what testimony are you advocating for? What belief are you so desperate to bolster?

Oh, he insists up and down that this has nothing to do with NT claims, though he has yet to provide an answer as to why he is so preoccupied with the subject.  No, that doesn't stink at all, does it?  😏