Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

I agree. Words are not capable of conveying truth value simply because they were asserted. So the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record plus the context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion. It is the inseparable package of these things together that form "evidence".

And the fact is, a person can have upstanding character, sharp cognitive abilities, a plethora of knowledge and experience with the subject, and a phenomenal track record, and yet...still be wrong about what they are recalling.

Such is the irrefutable unreliability of testimony, no matter how badly you guys want to muddle and over-complicate the matter.

A person can absolutely be wrong in their recollection. But it does not follow that if a person could be wrong in his recollection that all personal testimony is unreliable. It only follows that testimony could be unreliable. The other side of the coin that you did not mention was context--which is inseparable from the testimony and can weigh heavily in the assessment of the testimony. 

Your premise and conclusion:

1. A person's recollection could be wrong
2. Therefore all testimony is unreliable.

Really, it more like:

1' A person's recollection could be wrong
2' The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context

---

I agree. Words are not capable of conveying truth value simply because they were asserted. So the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record plus the context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion. It is the inseparable package of these things together that form "evidence".

Gee, that's alot of shit -outside of the testimony-...it's almost as if you don't think testimony is evidence at all........it's almost as if the value of testimony is determined by corroborating evidence. [1]

So, tell me, what do you know about "Paul"'s

character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record

Or, perhaps....magic book's

context of the event provide tangible and necessary inputs in determining the weight of testimonial evidence toward a conclusion.

? [2]

Uh-huh.  I enjoy watching this collapse like flan in a cupboard.  So, not only does testimony not meet the description you previously gave of evidence...in order to even asses it as...what(?)...you need all of this other stuff?

1. You missed the point entirely. The definition of testimony necessarily includes these things. You want to separate them because it strengthens your argument, but you are simply wrong. They cannot be separated. 

2. This is not the topic of discussion in the philosophy subforum.

---

Most of the time you don't get physical evidence--especially for events. So, the best evidence possible is often going to be testimonial evidence.

No, I'd say that events which really happen typically leave behind some kind of physical evidence of themselves. Much of our written history, for instance, has been either supported or refuted by archaeological evidence. Eye witness accounts can be supported or refuted by forensic evidence. Stopping at testimony is not a path to truth.

from a similar reply on page 20:

If one is testifying of an event, this testimony very well might be the only evidence you will ever be able to examine. For example:

1. Actions witnessed: someone running, weaving in and out of traffic, aimed his gun at the clerk.
2. Conditions witnessed through the five senses like at 8am I was sleeping, smelling gasoline, hearing an argument in the next apartment, the light was off. 
3. Interactions like the man shoved me out of the way, the stranger gave me a dollar for a coffee, I gave my bus seat to the old lady.
4. Conversations like Fred said he would shoot my dog if it shit on his lawn again or that Mary said she is having a bad day. 

Tell me, a week following any of these events, what physical evidence would be readily available to examine if the event really happened?  A month? A year? There are billions of such things every minute of every day happening in the world.