Testimony is Evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

It is a matter of semantics.

Then that;s to bad, and no more would need to be said.  

 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.  

No, it doesn't.  Even as a semantic flourish, it's too stretched to fly under the radar.  The difference between evidence and testimony just jumps out at anyon who's ever, you know, heard someones testimony and wondered whether or not it were true...and how to find out.

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)  

If a large portion of your beliefs are founded on testimony than a large portion of your beliefs are, meaningfully, unfounded.  

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).  

I don't think that those things single testimony out as not being evidence, that's your looneytunes fishing trip for something to bicker with.  I only expressed some the troubles with even -accepting- testimony as evidence, regardless of whether or not it is.  You delivered exactly what I expected in response.

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).  

Why would that be a problem for you..basing most of your beliefs on testimony?  You;d suddenly have an insurmountable need for ecvidence>  Doubtful.  But hey, it;s not like you couldn't go get it, if you wanted it.  Go, let wonder lead you to knowledge.....particularly if it aborts the next version of this thread before it comes to term.

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).

I;m not bickering with you over whether or not you can trust others or your own eyes, or the information they give you.  Your trust, like their testimony..simply isn't evidence.  Focus. You;re obviously capable of swallowing a whole load of testimony, but their having given it and your having taken it does not change what it is, or what it is not.