It does seem, that we need to rely on the testimony of others for truth about reality. Our own experiences are just to limited to be relied on in solitude. I have been looking outside of this conversation some. And have found (surprisingly to me) that the epistemology of testimony is a relatively new topic in philosophical debate. Unsurprisingly it is controversial. One of the key issues brought against testimony is gullibility. This brings up the topic that people do lie, particularly when it is of a benefit to them. On the other end, we need to rely on the testimony of others, and do so naturally (even instinctually as children). Much of the basis for our worldviews has a foundation on the testimony of others.
I do agree, that we need to check out the testimony of others, and see if it is collaborated. Either by other evidence or the free distinct testimony of others. Similarly, I don't think it is wise to simply dismiss testimony or other evidence (when well supported), in light of it conflicts with our own views. If we only accept what we support, and deny that which differs (simply because it differs), while we may be confident in our beliefs, they will not produce growth or learning (they are not mirroring reality).
I just want to clarify, that not all claims are to be believed, nor that we should not check them out. Many of the examples that have been given against testimony; I do agree are poor reasons to believe them. I do believe that skepticism is healthy, and that we should ask why when given a claim. On the other hand, hyper skepticism or philosophical skepticism is difficult to maintain, and I don't think that I have ever met someone who truly fit's this description. What we find more often is a selective hyper skepticism which is only applied to certain areas. Here all of the sudden absolute and unrealistic proof is required to validate the claim. This is where I disagree.
One of the other areas, in regard to testimony, which does have some controversy, is that testimony or observation is a basic principle. That is that observation; and the transmitting of knowledge in regards to that observation is a foundation or principle belief. It is not dependent on other things. I do agree with this, in this question of testimony. One of the struggles, I have had is with the burden of proof, which I do agree with, that it is up to the one making the claim to provide the reasons to believe it. But as a basic principle, while we can offer other collaborating evidence, there is no way to demonstrate that what is claimed is true. I can only relay what I have seen, similar as to I can only relay what I think, or what I feel.
I do agree, that we need to check out the testimony of others, and see if it is collaborated. Either by other evidence or the free distinct testimony of others. Similarly, I don't think it is wise to simply dismiss testimony or other evidence (when well supported), in light of it conflicts with our own views. If we only accept what we support, and deny that which differs (simply because it differs), while we may be confident in our beliefs, they will not produce growth or learning (they are not mirroring reality).
I just want to clarify, that not all claims are to be believed, nor that we should not check them out. Many of the examples that have been given against testimony; I do agree are poor reasons to believe them. I do believe that skepticism is healthy, and that we should ask why when given a claim. On the other hand, hyper skepticism or philosophical skepticism is difficult to maintain, and I don't think that I have ever met someone who truly fit's this description. What we find more often is a selective hyper skepticism which is only applied to certain areas. Here all of the sudden absolute and unrealistic proof is required to validate the claim. This is where I disagree.
One of the other areas, in regard to testimony, which does have some controversy, is that testimony or observation is a basic principle. That is that observation; and the transmitting of knowledge in regards to that observation is a foundation or principle belief. It is not dependent on other things. I do agree with this, in this question of testimony. One of the struggles, I have had is with the burden of proof, which I do agree with, that it is up to the one making the claim to provide the reasons to believe it. But as a basic principle, while we can offer other collaborating evidence, there is no way to demonstrate that what is claimed is true. I can only relay what I have seen, similar as to I can only relay what I think, or what I feel.
