Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

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?

---

Well, for most mundane claims I do often take people at their word unless I have a really good reason not to. Beyond that, I typically withhold belief until there's enough good information to decide what's true. Human perception and memory are faulty and easily fooled, and I don't trust either in situations where it actually matters.

It's hard to get away from the problems of human perception; whether you are receiving the information from another or first hand. If it is being observed or otherwise perceived, then someone's perception seems to be required.   And I don't understand how you remove the issues of memory either.  Aren't you relying on memory, in claiming something as mundane or not?  Are you not comparing it to past experiences (actually relying on both the things you're decrying here)?  I don't see how we can only base our beliefs on the now, when the current quickly becomes something of memory. 

And if you remove these things, then as I figure, all you are left with is human reasoning to base our beliefs on (no one has answered the question, if there is something else, with which they form a foundation for their beliefs on).   And I think that you will find that too, is fallible.  I think that if you are looking for some sort of modernist perfect system, then you are utilizing what has been shown as a poor philosophy.  Receiving information from another, does add the possibility of lying (although I do think, that you can lie to yourself as well). However our experiences are quite limited and we limit ourselves if we do not share (or accept) information from others.

I agree, that there are issues, that we need to detect and minimize with the epistemology of testimony. I don't believe that we should remove critical thinking or questioning in regard to the acceptance of testimony.  Quite the opposite in fact; however, I don't think we can just remove it all together or relegate it to only mundane accounts (I think this is equally wrong).  I find that testimony is difficult to escape from; and even more so, the arguments being used against it.  I observe that most of the studies being used (against the whole of testimony) are really concerning certain aspects of it.  And I think that the same reasoning applies as when it was brought up that DNA evidence is also fallible.  That we be aware of, and take into consideration of  the areas where mistakes may be made.

Of the concerns, deception and mistakes are an issue for any testimony, physical evidence, or personal experience for that matter. I do think that independent corroborating evidence (including testimony) is a good safeguard against these. With witness testimony in particular (even if that witness is you) we do have the added issues of how well they where able to perceive the event, as well as how well they can recall it. In a reference posted by someone else before, it stated that witness testimony is generally reliable. In my experience and I believe in the studies cited, I would agree. What the psychological studies cited here deal with, is mainly three issues 1) Identification of a stranger 2) Contamination of the testimony by an investigator and 3) the memory issues with recalling details. And in many of the studies of the third point, I believe they are introducing the second, by asking them to recall details they do not really remember. People can remember incorrectly, but this is often the result of trying to access something which they don't really remember. Overall, and for that which they do remember, this is not as much of a concern, and is much more difficult to change. And even if there is a mistake in one detail of the testimony, it doesn't follow that the whole is able to be dismissed rationally.

Even in arguing against it, people accused me of denying the evidence which came in the form of testimony (although they where incorrectly representing my position). It is difficult to get away from testimony as evidence (even when one is arguing against it). And from past experience, this mostly comes up selectively and pertaining to certain topics, where a person doesn't want to assess the evidence for something; however, in other areas this reasoning is not allowed.