Testimony is Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

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.

No. Intended or not, this is straw. It goes more like this:

1. Witness testimony is demonstrably unreliable.  (Innocent misremembering due to the falliable nature of human memory, as I mentioned in the post you quoted above, is only one of many factors that contribute to erroneous witness testimony.)

2. Therefore, I and any other rational person, in the interest of reason and truth, should wait for corroborating evidence before believing any claim beyond the most mundane, where being wrong in that belief carries little to no serious consequences.  And, especially before believing claims of the "supernatural" variety, which carry far-reaching and deep-seeded consequences such as the defining of one's world views, and the ways in which we value our lives, and the lives of others.

There's that relevant context you were talking about. 😉