Quote:which one's pass the test of legitimacy?
'ones'. Plural, not possessive.
For a testimony to be acceptable, there are a few generally agreed-upon criteria.
The testator should have no bias regarding the testimony. Taking a photograph of Abraham Lincoln is evidence that Lincoln existed, as the photographer is unlikely to have a particular axe to grind by taking a photograph. The Pauline epistles don't qualify as evidence, as Paul is inherently biased that his words be accepted as true.
The testimony is suspect if there is an alternative, more likely explanation. For example, if I tell you my toe hurts because I was attacked by a goblin who hit it with a club, we can reject this testimony in favour of 'Boru is a thumb-fingered idjit who dropped a hammer on his foot.'
The testimony should be able to be corroborated. We are told that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and so forth. But these events are to be found ONLY in the Bible. It is reasonable to assume that someone else, somewhere would have written of the water-walking trick. It isn't something that happens every day. The war you brought up, as well and Gandhi, are confirmed by multiple, contemporary sources.
I hope this helps.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
