Testimony is Evidence

[Amarok]

People can lie or be deluded and gain nothing for doing so. Or there is the fact that just because you can't think of a motive does not mean there is not one. So this this standard does not work.

People of good character can be wholly dishonest or extremely bias dependent on subject and often are . So no standard here .

Nope we change major metaphysical idea on evidence . Not testimony .

The suffering of religious figures is evidence of nothing .(countless figures in mythology have suffered )


So once again your ilk have failed to deliver Beta

And indeed no one have Beta came to his beliefs there is no reason to believe it was rational.

[Magilla]

Testimony is primarily, only evidence of itself. If I testify to something, then it is evidence that I have testified.
 
Assuming that it is being reported accurately*, the value of a testimonial, from an epistemic standing, is as useful as it is: testable, confirmable, logical and all of the usual criteria for evaluating evidence.
(* Accuracy = the testimonial being reported matches what the testifier stated, and that the testifier is not in error to begin with. Of course the testimonial taken directly from the testifier's mouth, pen or keyboard etc. may be taken as an accurate account of what they believe).
 
The testimonial, and its content should be evaluated separately . . .
 _____________________________________________
 
Does the testimonial as reported match what was stated by the source?
 
Did the testifier report what they are testifying to, reliable in the first pace? {Suppose the testifier stated that they saw a green dragon, but in fact the dragon was white - then what?}

Is what was stated; testable, tested, confirmed or not ?
 _____________________________________________
 
The testimony is evidence of a testifier, and that there is a testimonial with certain content. The truth, or value of the content has to be evaluated, just as any evidence must.

[Redbeard The Pink]

To you first question, I'm assuming, that you are referring to my religious beliefs.  It's going to depend on what you are talking about.  Some yes and some no.

For the second question I don't know that there is a formula or a checklist.  I think that much of it lies in the details and context of the testimony.  What I think of as witness testimony only include what they describe as seeing or experiencing.  If the testimony only includes the conclusion, I don't consider that very good evidence or testimony.  Many have included the possibility of lying or mistaken in their objections.  Corroborating evidence (either other testimony or physical evidence left behind)  goes a long way towards reducing these issues, and makes  for stronger testimony.  If they are independent of the circumstances (not benefiting), or there is reason for them not to give their testimony and they do anyway, then I think this makes their testimony better.  I ask questions, like if they are including details non relevant to the conclusion or are they editing large parts out?  Is there reasons to question it?

But generally, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I have reason to dismiss them (principle of charity). 

How do you decide what testimony to believe and what not to?

Well, for most mundane claims I do often take people at their word unless I have a really good reason not to. Beyond that, I typically withhold belief until there's enough good information to decide what's true. Human perception and memory are faulty and easily fooled, and I don't trust either in situations where it actually matters.

[John V]

We make decisions all the time without a clear metric to evaluate evidence.

Not decisions that require major changes to our world views, we don't.

OK. Let's see the result of your various positions:

1. Atheists have decided to be theists.
2. Such decision requires a major change to world view.
3. People don't make decisions that require major changes to world view without a clear metric to evaluate evidence.
3. There's no evidence for religious beliefs other than testimony.
4. Therefore, testimony is evidence which can be evaluated by a clear metric.

Sure.  So. . . giving testimony and arguing for its validity is a hobby, something to do just for hoots, I suppose?

I'm not giving my testimony. I'm not an evangelist, and I believe proselytizing is against the rules here (and I've never received a warning about it). I'm in the philosophy section discussing testimony as evidence. I've included secular examples (smoking) as well as religious, but you don't want to engage on that because whether you agree or disagree, your position is hurt.

Here's another secular case: Do you believe Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Gettysburg on Nov. 19, 1863? If so, on what evidence do you base your belief?

Paul (a) was motivated to tell the world about Jesus; (b) wasn't motivated to tell the world about Jesus.  If he was motivated, there was a reason for his motivation.

Correct. Since he had previously been a rising star in the dominant religion of his people, there's no apparent reason for him to abandon that religion and at times oppose it. So, his actions support the position that he actually believed what he was saying. Doesn't mean it was true, but it indicates that he believed it.

With Mohammed, he may have believed what he said, but since his testimony resulted in significant earthly benefits, there's greater chance that he invented it for his own good.

With FSM, we know the creator didn't believe it himself.

The satisfaction of a motivation is seen as a benefit by a motivated part.

Without another real benefit, that's completely circular.

On what basis will you claim that Jesus suffered.

I'll claim that Jesus and Paul suffered on the basis of the Bible. You said the Muslim will do the same thing. How?

[Cyberman]

I'm not giving my testimony. I'm not an evangelist, and I believe proselytizing is against the rules here (and I've never received a warning about it).

What funny beliefs you have!

[bennyboy]

OK. Let's see the result of your various positions:

1. Atheists have decided to be theists.
2. Such decision requires a major change to world view.
3. People don't make decisions that require major changes to world view without a clear metric to evaluate evidence.
3. There's no evidence for religious beliefs other than testimony.
4. Therefore, testimony is evidence which can be evaluated by a clear metric.

Yes. Some atheists have been in a mental state in which the religious testimony of Christians or others have caused them to adopt that religion. Remember what I said before-- that each listener sets his own standard for what experiences he will consider sufficiently valuable to take as evidence.

I think very few atheists indeed are likely to convert to theism based on the quality of the evidence presented. I think it's more likely that an atheist will have a psychological troubling event, like the death of a family member, and suspend the requirement of evidence to be objective.

Here's another secular case: Do you believe Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Gettysburg on Nov. 19, 1863? If so, on what evidence do you base your belief?

There's a certain convergence of verbal and printed accounts, photographs and so on which make it pretty certain to me that Lincoln existed, became president, and so on. As for whether he gave that speech on that day, I will have to rely on the assertions of those who heard it.

Correct. Since he had previously been a rising star in the dominant religion of his people, there's no apparent reason for him to abandon that religion and at times oppose it. So, his actions support the position that he actually believed what he was saying. Doesn't mean it was true, but it indicates that he believed it.

I think that's probably true. I'd also say that very many of the Christians testimonials are put forward by honest people describing actual experiences.

It is their interpretations of those experiences which I doubt.

Without another real benefit, that's completely circular.

It's not so much a circle as a conflation.

I'll claim that Jesus and Paul suffered on the basis of the Bible. You said the Muslim will do the same thing. How?

I believe the Muslim will make factual claims based on testimonial "evidence," and that at least some of these claims will conflict with some Christian claims.

[Astonished]

1. Atheists have decided to be theists.
2. Such decision requires a major change to world view.
3. People don't make decisions that require major changes to world view without a clear metric to evaluate evidence.
4. There's no evidence for religious beliefs other than testimony.
5. Therefore, testimony is evidence which can be evaluated by a clear metric.

1. No. For someone to become convinced, that's not a decision, that's their brain accepting it on common logic or, more commonly, on the damaged area of the brain due to religious indoctrination. I cannot DECIDE to believe something. My brain has to accept the evidence enough to become convinced. There's no will involved. I cannot decide to believe I can levitate.

2. Not necessarily. Everyone's interpretation of religious bullshit is different. A person going from rational skepticism to incorporating a deistic god into it need not experience a great deal of change to their overall worldview.

3. You clearly don't know any stupid people. Though given how your mindset works, that is shocking.

4. There's no evidence for religious beliefs other than testimony. Fixed that for ya.

5. Nope. Is a scientific hypothesis evidence? An assertion is not evidence, it's the claim. It's what requires evidence to support it. You don't go to court, make the accusation, and then convict the motherfucker.

[downbeatplumb]

Woof bloody woof.

Millenium hand and fish.

[RoadRunner79]

---

To you first question, I'm assuming, that you are referring to my religious beliefs.  It's going to depend on what you are talking about.  Some yes and some no.

For the second question I don't know that there is a formula or a checklist.  I think that much of it lies in the details and context of the testimony.  What I think of as witness testimony only include what they describe as seeing or experiencing.  If the testimony only includes the conclusion, I don't consider that very good evidence or testimony.  Many have included the possibility of lying or mistaken in their objections.  Corroborating evidence (either other testimony or physical evidence left behind)  goes a long way towards reducing these issues, and makes  for stronger testimony.  If they are independent of the circumstances (not benefiting), or there is reason for them not to give their testimony and they do anyway, then I think this makes their testimony better.  I ask questions, like if they are including details non relevant to the conclusion or are they editing large parts out?  Is there reasons to question it?

But generally, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I have reason to dismiss them (principle of charity). 

How do you decide what testimony to believe and what not to?

---

Well, for most mundane claims I do often take people at their word unless I have a really good reason not to. Beyond that, I typically withhold belief until there's enough good information to decide what's true. Human perception and memory are faulty and easily fooled, and I don't trust either in situations where it actually matters.

It's hard to get away from the problems of human perception; whether you are receiving the information from another or first hand. If it is being observed or otherwise perceived, then someone's perception seems to be required.   And I don't understand how you remove the issues of memory either.  Aren't you relying on memory, in claiming something as mundane or not?  Are you not comparing it to past experiences (actually relying on both the things you're decrying here)?  I don't see how we can only base our beliefs on the now, when the current quickly becomes something of memory. 

And if you remove these things, then as I figure, all you are left with is human reasoning to base our beliefs on (no one has answered the question, if there is something else, with which they form a foundation for their beliefs on).   And I think that you will find that too, is fallible.  I think that if you are looking for some sort of modernist perfect system, then you are utilizing what has been shown as a poor philosophy.  Receiving information from another, does add the possibility of lying (although I do think, that you can lie to yourself as well). However our experiences are quite limited and we limit ourselves if we do not share (or accept) information from others.

I agree, that there are issues, that we need to detect and minimize with the epistemology of testimony. I don't believe that we should remove critical thinking or questioning in regard to the acceptance of testimony.  Quite the opposite in fact; however, I don't think we can just remove it all together or relegate it to only mundane accounts (I think this is equally wrong).  I find that testimony is difficult to escape from; and even more so, the arguments being used against it.  I observe that most of the studies being used (against the whole of testimony) are really concerning certain aspects of it.  And I think that the same reasoning applies as when it was brought up that DNA evidence is also fallible.  That we be aware of, and take into consideration of  the areas where mistakes may be made.

Of the concerns, deception and mistakes are an issue for any testimony, physical evidence, or personal experience for that matter. I do think that independent corroborating evidence (including testimony) is a good safeguard against these. With witness testimony in particular (even if that witness is you) we do have the added issues of how well they where able to perceive the event, as well as how well they can recall it. In a reference posted by someone else before, it stated that witness testimony is generally reliable. In my experience and I believe in the studies cited, I would agree. What the psychological studies cited here deal with, is mainly three issues 1) Identification of a stranger 2) Contamination of the testimony by an investigator and 3) the memory issues with recalling details. And in many of the studies of the third point, I believe they are introducing the second, by asking them to recall details they do not really remember. People can remember incorrectly, but this is often the result of trying to access something which they don't really remember. Overall, and for that which they do remember, this is not as much of a concern, and is much more difficult to change. And even if there is a mistake in one detail of the testimony, it doesn't follow that the whole is able to be dismissed rationally.

Even in arguing against it, people accused me of denying the evidence which came in the form of testimony (although they where incorrectly representing my position). It is difficult to get away from testimony as evidence (even when one is arguing against it). And from past experience, this mostly comes up selectively and pertaining to certain topics, where a person doesn't want to assess the evidence for something; however, in other areas this reasoning is not allowed.

[Ravenshire]

Here's another secular case: Do you believe Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Gettysburg on Nov. 19, 1863? If so, on what evidence do you base your belief?

Sure, there's testimonial evidence of the speech which does a good job supporting this:

Physical evidence of the speech in the form of original drafts, preserved by the Library of Congress.

---

People can lie or be deluded and gain nothing for doing so. Or there is the fact that just because you can't think of a motive does not mean there is not one. So this this standard does not work.

Further, they can repeat lies, speculations, assumptions, etc... they've been told that they accepted as true, with or without motive.