Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Well you seem to be saying that testimony is not science..... what does that mean in regards to the discussion?  
Yet again, you seem to be saying that if you do not see it for yourself, that it is not evidence, or that it is only evidence to the one who has seen.   Do you not know anything, which you have not personally seen? (it must be a small world for you).

People are more likely to accept "testimony" about categories for which they already have experience, to have curiosity or suspicion about those categories for which they do not already have experience, and deep suspicion or disbelief for those which contradict what they already know, not only in detail but on a more fundamental level.

For example, if someone says they saw Johnny and he's wearing a nose ring these days, I'm likely to take that at face value.  I might be surprised that Johnny would do such a thing, but I know people sometimes change and do stuff like that.

If someone says Johnny walked on water and gave a blind man his vision, I'm unlikely to take that at face value.  

I would agree that we may be willing to make more assumptions or concessions, for a number of reasons.  However, I don't think that others are required or expected to make the same allowances, for lack of reasonable evidence. I believe that what is reasonable in one case, is reasonable in a similar case.  I am also open to new ideas, and believe that we should look at the evidence.  Perhaps it is just me, but I think that sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring evidence that doesn't conform to your a priori beliefs is a good epistemology.

To you, it's the same process: somebody said something, and their "testimony" is evidence of truth.  But the farther claims range from what I believe to be true, the more likely I am to resist the claim.

I do think that is natural, and it is difficult to accept things which conflict with our worldview (although; while it may be natural, I don't think it is always beneficial, and we should follow the evidence).  

In the case of science, I've done relatively few investigations.  However, of the few I've done with my own hands, they have ALWAYS turned out as expected.  I therefore believe if I follow a course of science, I will learn a lot about the world, and my trust comes from the fact that I can either reproduce, or have a sensible explanation about why I can't reproduce results.

Well your results seem to be better than the results of the poll of Scientists who responded  in the Journal Nature I cited. But it probably depends on what you are doing.  And I do think that the method of science has produced a number of great things.  

In the case of religion, my own inquiries have produced little results.  Instead of clarifying their position, those religious spiritualists whom I've met attempt to cloud or mystify the subject.  They cannot accurately describe how they made their own inquiries, or how I can make mine to produce a useful result.  Their testimony does not provide me with any benefit to my world view-- nothing is well-explained, answers to those questions I care about are not really given.  I'm not willing to sit in a monastery for 20 years on a promise that eventually I will come into communion with God.

My experience differs, and I find that if I take a presuppositional approach, that a large number of things are better explained through theism.   However I fail to see, what this has to do with testimony.   In fact this seems to be one of a number of things, which you offer through testimony in this post, which you seem to be giving as justification or reason for your beliefs (evidence).  I find this somewhat self defeating.