Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, testimony is not firm evidence. However, in a lot of cases, I'll accept it. Not all claims are equal. Some are mundane and/or unimportant. For those, I'll accept a minimal level of evidence. As they get more unusual or important, I'll require more evidence.

I've said this many times, but scientific theories represent something anyone can falsify, without requiring any specific information. So I'm not just believing the people who developed the theory, I'm aware of the fact that no one has falsified it. And there will always be people desperately trying to falsify theories. If it's surviving worldwide scrutiny, then that gives me a massive level of confidence. The only other scenario is that people who falsify it, anywhere in the world, are being silenced before they can get their stuff out on the internet. If I don't believe these theories, I wouldn't be able to believe anything. They are more reliable, in my opinion, than what I see with my own eyes, because of the level of scrutiny they have gone through. Of course, I think them through and see if they make sense to me. And generally they do, if I can understand them. They align with reality.

So, then the principle, here appears to be, that the claim is falsifiable, others are able to test it and report against it, and it has held up to scrutiny. Here I would agree in regards to testimony or non personal experiences. I would differ in that I may not always understand, or depending on the evidence, that I may need to change my understanding. Now it would depend on how well I observed something, but I don't doubt my own observations that much (although I don't discount others either). I look at all the information, and the strengths and weaknesses. However even science allows for anomolies, and I don't believe that evidence should be discarded, because it doesn't fit.

Also, interesting though they are, most scientific theories don't impact my life in any way. If I believe them but they turn out to be wrong, I shrug my shoulders. I don't base my (moral) actions on them. So I don't need to go and personally verify every single one, because I don't care enough. People are doing that for me, all over the world. I have other stuff to do.

So no, science is not just the testimony of a bunch of people. Look at everything around you, developed by science. If you think all that is based on nothing more than the say-so of a few people, I don't know what I can tell you. Science is what works, and it does. Why you want to try and equate science with testimony, I don't know. I can only think you don't know much about how science really works. That's an observation, not an insult.

What point you're even trying to make, I still don't know.

I don't equate science and testimony (as has been stated before). Although I would disagree with a definition of science as "what works". Now if the sharing of knowledge found through the scientific method equals the definition of testimony, then I would say that according to the law of identity, that the principles or characteristics of testimony, then also apply. I'm not really discussing or disputing the scientific method, so I don't think that your observation or assumption apply to what you think I know (as well, you don't understand the argument). I also think it is further demonstration of difficulty in abstract thinking, and applying the principles apart from the subject at hand, and justifying methods.