Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Do you think that was based on good testimony?

Ummm...do you think your beliefs are based on good testimony?

Also...what's your methodology for parsing out good testimony from bad?

To you first question, I'm assuming, that you are referring to my religious beliefs.  It's going to depend on what you are talking about.  Some yes and some no.

For the second question I don't know that there is a formula or a checklist.  I think that much of it lies in the details and context of the testimony.  What I think of as witness testimony only include what they describe as seeing or experiencing.  If the testimony only includes the conclusion, I don't consider that very good evidence or testimony.  Many have included the possibility of lying or mistaken in their objections.  Corroborating evidence (either other testimony or physical evidence left behind)  goes a long way towards reducing these issues, and makes  for stronger testimony.  If they are independent of the circumstances (not benefiting), or there is reason for them not to give their testimony and they do anyway, then I think this makes their testimony better.  I ask questions, like if they are including details non relevant to the conclusion or are they editing large parts out?  Is there reasons to question it?

But generally, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I have reason to dismiss them (principle of charity). 

How do you decide what testimony to believe and what not to?

---

It looks like RR has bailed on his own thread, again.

Eventually, a topic exhausts itself when on possible points have been made. There is no shame in letting others have the last word.

I think that there is more to discuss; but generally as I said, mostly busy and tired, and grew weary of fighting.   I'm still curious, if one dismisses personal experience and testimony from others, what evidence do they really have, in which to base any belief?  It doesn't seem like the possibility of a mistake is that big of a deal in other areas, why so much with testimony?

---

Also...what's your methodology for parsing out good testimony from bad?

When it tells him what he wants to hear, that's "good" testimony.  Anything else is bad.

That's exactly what I am arguing against.  And oddly enough what I think that many's position is, as I don't believe that they would allow me to dismiss their evidence quite so easily.  I've tried before with the story of evolution.