Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Now if you think my reasons are faulty or that I still don't know how logic works, please be specific, in what you feel I'm doing wrong.

LOL, not like it would be the first time....but here goes.

You;re doing it wrong in that you are searching for a semantic equivalence between testimony and evidence, not a qualitative equivalence.  Whatever truth you could extract from such a process would be trivial.  Further, your prime example of testimony as evidence is not an example of testimony as evidence..or, again, of any qualitative equivalence, but an issue of when people will -accept- it as evidence.  

Regardless of any trivial semantic equivalence you might draw, or how many people would accept testimony as evidence, the issue of a disparity between testimony and evidence still exists.  Cheifly, in that testimony not only does not make it's contents evident, it cannot.  The simplest and most uncontroversial claim, referred to as testimony, does not advance or indicate the accuracy of it;s contents in the least.  To do that, we (and this means you...as well) must refer to other articles external to the claim, external to the testimony..and these things are the evidence upon which the simple value of the testimony -as- testimony are assessed by.  This is what makes it -evident- that a persons testimony is or is not accurate.  

It should be very clear, in all of this, that when discussing evidence and testimony...one of these things is not like the other.

Continuing...you could, if you wanted to, choose to -accept- testimony as evidence but you will run into a whole host of problems that simply do not exist with evidence.  DNA does not have a faulty memory.  It does not lie.  It is not subject o the whole host of bias -inherent- in even the most reliable human witness. The notion that testimony has x y ans z and so is not evidence and dna has x y and z and so is not evidence, I'mm willing to bet actual money, will rely on the same sort of sloppy thought expressed in the primary assertion that testimony is evidence.  Trivial equivalences, semantics, and the accidental, incidental, or intentional ignorance of irreconcilable and irrefutable qualitative differences.

Thoughts>?

It is a matter of semantics.  And as I shown, testimony fits the definition of evidence (which I haven't seen anyone reason against that); this would place it within the description of evidence.  I believe that what you are talking about in qualitative evidence is about numbers or how reliable it is. And this is a valid point.  Some may point to astrology as evidence for what their day would be like, but I don't think that either of us would dispute a relatively low value in that method.  

I have seen anything where I could make even a rough estimate for testimony as a whole, for reliability. No studies, and even criminal case evaluations I have looked at, do not provide the necessary information.   I don't think that my interlocutors have this information either (otherwise we would be discussing methods and/or thresholds right now).  However I do find that a large portion of my beliefs are based on the testimony of others.  From facts about science from others, to the news, history, even at work, I depend on it.  If I am not depending on information from another, then I am relying on personal observations and memory to indicate a belief or proposition to be true.  What do I see now, what did I see a little bit ago, and how does that fit within past experiences.  Lastly, reason plays a role in forming valid beliefs; which is not part of the topic, but hardly infallible itsel (which I assume is not disputed)f. Now often these three methods work together in various mixes and arrangements.  However I am not aware of any other method of gaining information and facts to indicate that a belief or proposition is valid (unless perhaps you want to include feelings, which I don't think is a particularly strong method.  Do you have any method to add to this?  (People still seem to be avoiding this point)  

I do agree, that DNA evidence, does not have a bias, it does not lie (at least on it's own) and does not have memory at all (let a lone a faulty one).  It has it's own liabilities which testimony doesn't share.  Why do you think these particular liabilities single out testimony as not being evidence?  There is a problem with any contamination of evidence [psychologicalscience.org], and in the real world, this is difficult to avoid completely all the time.  All we can do is mitigate the particular weaknesses of the evidence we have to form a reasonable conclusion or belief (which may be that the evidence in whatever form isn't sufficient to believe the proposition is true).  

And then there is the difficulty, that if I accept that testimony isn't evidence, based on the information you all are giving, then I have no evidence in which to support that belief (because all the testimony from others is no longer useful in indicating the belief is true; they could be lying, or subject to the whole host of bias inherent to the most reliable human witness).  

I'm not taking any type of absolute position here.  That testimony shouldn't be weighed and evaluated.  That is shouldn't be tested for it's value (according to what it offers).  Nor that it shouldn't be compared with other available evidence.  Sometimes testimony may be stronger, and other times, it may be weaker.  Which is why I don't think that anecdotes of when testimony is weak prove a case against what I am saying.  And individual anecdotes do not make a general case agaisnt the category of testimony (and isn't nearly as strong as proposed, when witness mis-identification is removed)  So again, I ask.... if anyone is arguing that you cannot trust information from others, and you cannot trust what you witness; what are you basing your beliefs on (and is it more reliable).