Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

It does seem, that we need to rely on the testimony of others for truth about reality.   Our own experiences are just to limited to be relied on in solitude.  I have been looking outside of this conversation some.  And have found (surprisingly to me) that the epistemology of testimony is a relatively new topic in philosophical debate.  Unsurprisingly it is controversial.  One of the key issues brought against testimony is gullibility.  This brings up the topic that people do lie, particularly when it is of a benefit to them.    On the other end, we need to rely on the testimony of others, and do so naturally (even instinctually as children).  Much of the basis for our worldviews has a foundation on the testimony of others.  

I do agree, that we need to check out the testimony of others, and see if it is collaborated.  Either by other evidence or the free distinct testimony of others.  Similarly, I don't think it is wise to simply dismiss testimony or other evidence (when well supported), in light of it conflicts with our own views.  If we only accept what we support, and deny that which differs (simply because it differs), while we may be confident in our beliefs, they will not produce growth or learning (they are not mirroring reality). 

I just want to clarify, that not all claims are to be believed, nor that we should not check them out.  Many of the examples that have been given against testimony; I do agree are poor reasons to believe them.  I do believe that skepticism is healthy, and that we should ask why when given a claim.  On the other hand, hyper skepticism or philosophical skepticism is difficult to maintain, and I don't think that I have ever met someone who truly fit's this description. What we find more often is a selective hyper skepticism which is only applied to certain areas.    Here all of the sudden absolute and unrealistic proof is required to validate the claim. This is where I disagree.

One of the other areas, in regard to testimony, which does have some controversy, is that testimony or observation is a basic principle.   That is that observation; and the transmitting of knowledge in regards to that observation is a foundation or principle belief.  It is not dependent on other things.  I do agree with this, in this question of testimony.  One of the struggles, I have had is with the burden of proof, which I do agree with, that it is up to the one making the claim to provide the reasons to believe it.  But as a basic principle, while we can offer other collaborating evidence, there is no way to demonstrate that what is claimed is true.   I can only relay what I have seen, similar as to I can only relay what I think, or what I feel.

[bennyboy]

Where it can reasonably be shown, this may be valid.  However the question occurs to me, how often do you do this?  I also think that if you did this often without reason to your professor he may take it as questioning his integrity; and tell you where you can go fly your kite.

He can do that, and risk me not listening to him anymore.  In a university classroom, where he distributes grades and I'm just the paying pleb, that's fine.  If he's trying to convince other scientists (or even students) of a surprising new theory, then if he says, "Trust me or piss off!" he will lose his audience very quickly.

 
As said before, I do believe in verifying with others, and a single claim is not very strong.  Similar to in science, where they do not make hasty generalizations based on a single test.  In your example, I would say the response is reason for suspicion (there is no way to falsify the claim).  When I hear a claim that I am skeptical about, one of the first things I do is look to see if others validate (or invalidate) the claims.

The problem is that in the case of religion, there is a common element-- the willingness to believe in fairy tales-- which renders their credibility with regard to the existence of fairy tales in question for non-religious people.

Here's the thing-- you are confused about the difference between observations and conclusions.  If someone said, "I had an overwhelming peaceful feeling," I'd accept that as evidence.  If they said, "The spirit of Jesus descending onto my spirit, and I had an overwhelming peaceful feeling," I'd immediately disregard their "testimony" as being speculative wishy-thinking.

And this is why religious testimony fails as evidence-- it involves multiple people presenting non-sequitur conclusions rather than just stating observable fact.

[Cato]

But as a basic principle, while we can offer other collaborating evidence, there is no way to demonstrate that what is claimed is true.   I can only relay what I have seen, similar as to I can only relay what I think, or what I feel.

I'm pretty sure you should have used 'corroborating' instead of 'collaborating'.

Either way, what you just admitted is that you don't give a damn about evidence. The only thing important to you is how a truth claim makes you feel.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Where it can reasonably be shown, this may be valid.  However the question occurs to me, how often do you do this?  I also think that if you did this often without reason to your professor he may take it as questioning his integrity; and tell you where you can go fly your kite.

---

He can do that, and risk me not listening to him anymore.  In a university classroom, where he distributes grades and I'm just the paying pleb, that's fine.  If he's trying to convince other scientists (or even students) of a surprising new theory, then if he says, "Trust me or piss off!" he will lose his audience very quickly.

I think that we may be talking about different things or have different images in mind.  I'm not talking about some sketchy claim with poor evidence.  I'm speaking of believing based on good testimony corroborated by others.   If you have to see to believe, then you must have a lot of time, and some very deap pockets. 

---

As said before, I do believe in verifying with others, and a single claim is not very strong.  Similar to in science, where they do not make hasty generalizations based on a single test.  In your example, I would say the response is reason for suspicion (there is no way to falsify the claim).  When I hear a claim that I am skeptical about, one of the first things I do is look to see if others validate (or invalidate) the claims.

---

The problem is that in the case of religion, there is a common element-- the willingness to believe in fairy tales-- which renders their credibility with regard to the existence of fairy tales in question for non-religious people.

Here's the thing-- you are confused about the difference between observations and conclusions.  If someone said, "I had an overwhelming peaceful feeling," I'd accept that as evidence.  If they said, "The spirit of Jesus descending onto my spirit, and I had an overwhelming peaceful feeling," I'd immediately disregard their "testimony" as being speculative wishy-thinking.

And this is why religious testimony fails as evidence-- it involves multiple people presenting non-sequitur conclusions rather than just stating observable fact.

I think that you are making large assumptions here about me.  I am definitely going to make a distinction between the observation and the conclusion.  And I am going to challenge the person who only gives the conclusion, without the reason for the conclusion.  I have this every now and then at work.   They tell me, that component X was bad, they replaced it and still had the problem.  I have come very close to yelling at someone, to tell me what they saw and heard, rather, than what they think is wrong with the machine.  I want their testimony, not their conclusion.

I see the same thing in discussions, where people do not want to reason through their claims, and just jump to the conclusion as well.

[bennyboy]

I think that we may be talking about different things or have different images in mind.  I'm not talking about some sketchy claim with poor evidence.  I'm speaking of believing based on good testimony corroborated by others.   If you have to see to believe, then you must have a lot of time, and some very deap pockets. 

If someone wants to use testimony of a trusted person to confirm his own experiences or beliefs, he may do so. However, if he does NOT hold a belief, and isn't easily inclined to do so, he will not be willing to accept the testimony of any number of people, particularly if he finds their claims contrary to what he knows about reality.

I think that you are making large assumptions here about me.  I am definitely going to make a distinction between the observation and the conclusion.  And I am going to challenge the person who only gives the conclusion, without the reason for the conclusion.  I have this every now and then at work.   They tell me, that component X was bad, they replaced it and still had the problem.  I have come very close to yelling at someone, to tell me what they saw and heard, rather, than what they think is wrong with the machine.  I want their testimony, not their conclusion.

I see the same thing in discussions, where people do not want to reason through their claims, and just jump to the conclusion as well.

You have finally produced an example. Let's say that at your work, several people supported the claim that component X was bad. Would their number matter? No. If their claims were inconsistent with what you know about the machinery, and especially since the problem persisted, you would arrive at the conclusion that 'n' number of workmates were idiots. And if you were a foreman, you might also wonder if they were all liars as well. And if you were foreman of a very large company, and their were hundreds whose "testimony" pointed to component X being bad, for which you can immediately see there's no evidence, you wouldn't change your mind; you'd slap your head, maybe recommend a few dismissals, and start looking for people who were capable of grasping reality.

Am I wrong?

[RoadRunner79]

I'm pretty sure you should have used 'corroborating' instead of 'collaborating'.

Yes... thank you for the correction!

---

But as a basic principle, while we can offer other collaborating evidence, there is no way to demonstrate that what is claimed is true.   I can only relay what I have seen, similar as to I can only relay what I think, or what I feel.

---

Either way, what you just admitted is that you don't give a damn about evidence. The only thing important to you is how a truth claim makes you feel.

Not at all.... while I do not think that a feeling is of no value, I am going to question a warm fuzzy feeling given as an explanation (either from myself or others).  I am going to look for other verification for that feeling.  

Perhaps that was not a good comparison for me to make (I wasn't comparing observation/testimony to feelings as evidence).   More that it is not derived from anything else (my comparison is seeming worse and worse now). Our observations are a fundamental truth, from which further truth is derived.

[RoadRunner79]

If someone wants to use testimony of a trusted person to confirm his own experiences or beliefs, he may do so.  However, if he does NOT hold a belief, and isn't easily inclined to do so, he will not be willing to accept the testimony of any number of people, particularly if he finds their claims contrary to what he knows about reality.

Perhaps for you.... but now I see you as no different in your justification than the young earth crowd (perhaps less so; as you don't even refer to something outside of yourself).

---

I think that you are making large assumptions here about me.  I am definitely going to make a distinction between the observation and the conclusion.  And I am going to challenge the person who only gives the conclusion, without the reason for the conclusion.  I have this every now and then at work.   They tell me, that component X was bad, they replaced it and still had the problem.  I have come very close to yelling at someone, to tell me what they saw and heard, rather, than what they think is wrong with the machine.  I want their testimony, not their conclusion.

I see the same thing in discussions, where people do not want to reason through their claims, and just jump to the conclusion as well.

---

You have finally produced an example.  Let's say that at your work, several people supported the claim that component X was bad.  Would their number matter?  No.  If their claims were inconsistent with what you know about the machinery, and especially since the problem persisted, you would arrive at the conclusion that 'n' number of workmates were idiots.  And if you were a foreman, you might also wonder if they were all liars as well.  And if you were foreman of a very large company, and their were hundreds whose "testimony" pointed to component X being bad, for which you can immediately see there's no evidence, you wouldn't change your mind; you'd slap your head, maybe recommend a few dismissals, and start looking for people who were capable of grasping reality.

Am I wrong?
[/quote]

Now who is confusing a conclusion for testimony?

And I wouldn't fire people for a mistake. Everyone gets stuck in a pattern of thinking sometimes (even some who I consider to be very good). Also there have been times, where I check things out, and come to the same conclusion that the component still is bad. In this case, I am very thorough, but I have had people wait for another component to come in based on my testimony.

There are also a number of times, where I have to rely mostly on testimony. Either the problem is intermittent and non-repeatable, may risk harm to the person (or thousands of dollars of damage to the machine). In such an instance, I'm not going to have to see it to believe it. However if I can check it easily for myself, then I normally do.

[bennyboy]

Now who is confusing a conclusion for testimony?  

And I wouldn't fire people for a mistake.  Everyone gets stuck in a pattern of thinking sometimes (even some who I consider to be very good).  Also there have been times, where I check things out, and come to the same conclusion that the component still is bad.  In this case, I am very thorough, but I have had people wait for another component to come in based on my testimony.  

There are also a number of times, where I have to rely mostly on testimony.  Either the problem is intermittent and non-repeatable, may risk harm to the person (or thousands of dollars of damage to the machine).  In such an instance, I'm not going to have to see it to believe it.  However if I can check it easily for myself, then I normally do.

Here's this whole thread: you keep talking about communication, or about evidence, and calling it "testimony." It's not, and nobody uses that word about those things except you. And the reason you do it is obvious: if I say your workplace communication is "testimony," then you will say, "See? We use testimony all the time, and it's a perfectly natural and important way to collect information about reality. . . therefore please consider my testimony about Jeebus." But people here know how words work, and it's pretty obvious how you are going about trying to set up an equivocation on the term.

Here's the difference, and then we're done methinks.
-Testimony uses the ideas of people to hold up "facts."
-Evidence uses facts to hold up (or demolish) the ideas held by people.

The former is weak, as people have all kinds of shitty ideas. The latter is strong, as sufficient evidence will reveal its truth, whether an observer is critical or not.

[RoadRunner79]

Here's this whole thread: you keep talking about communication, or about evidence, and calling it "testimony."  It's not, and nobody uses that word about those things except you.  And the reason you do it is obvious: if I say your workplace communication is "testimony," then you will say, "See?  We use testimony all the time, and it's a perfectly natural and important way to collect information about reality. . . therefore please consider my testimony about Jeebus."  But people here know how words work, and it's pretty obvious how you are going about trying to set up an equivocation on the term.

Here's the difference, and then we're done methinks.
-Testimony uses the ideas of people to hold up "facts."
-Evidence uses facts to hold up (or demolish) the ideas held by people.

The former is weak, as people have all kinds of shitty ideas.  The latter is strong, as sufficient evidence will reveal its truth, whether an observer is critical or not.

It's pretty obvious to me, that people cannot discuss this, without making assumptions about where they think it is headed and what I'm going to do. It appears a way to divert away from discussing rationally.  

Testimony comes from the Latin word "testis" (root) and "testimonium"(1).  Meaning "witness" or "witness thereof" respectively. That is knowledge that comes as a result of the witness and transmission of another.    This is all I'm discussing in this regard; and to the dismissal of knowledge simply because it comes from testimony.  I think that this is ridiculous as an argument, especially as it is easy to show that it is not held consistently.  For instance, you want me to accept your testimony, or the testimony of some expert, but then use "it's testimony" as the reason to dismiss another claim.  I think this requires more, and that as a reason for dismissal is insufficient.  

Evidence is "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"(2)   In your comparison I think that you are speaking of something other than what I am for testimony (perhaps you can clarify).  Testimony would be evidence, acquired in a specific manner.  Also your "difference" between testimony and evidence seems somewhat circular. The only thing that makes since to me is that you are trying to say that testimony equals conclusion, where as evidence equals reason.  I would disagree, as the testimony is about witness, not the conclusion.

[IATIA]

Regardless of what some may think your goal is, it does not change the fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Even if a witness is able to perfectly recall an event, there is no way to corroborate that without evidence that makes the eyewitness testimony moot.