Testimony is Evidence

[Astonished]

Dude, don't do that. I thought you were Shit-Eating Doofus Rik invading this thread too.

Rik does not own that emoji. And we have every right to use it .

He made it tainted. LOL.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What they seen of the event, is not information in which to base a conclusion?  Does a person need to see the evidence for themselves, in order for it to be evidence?

You missed my point.  The event is not the evidence. The event is the occurrence. If you're going to engage in discussion, it pays to use words in accordance with their definitions.

As for your second question, I've already mentioned in this thread that I think testimony may be evidence in some situations. If a person comes to a conclusion in the absence of evidence -- such as you or NS with regards to your faith -- that's your business. If you want to convince me of something, bring me evidence.

Roadrunner79 and I are in fact paying very close attention to definitions. The word evidence has two connotations: (1) that which is evident, i.e. basic facts and observations; and (2) that which given warrant to an opinion. We claim nothing more than the notion that personal testimony satisfies the definition as (1) and that a sufficient quantity of quality testimony can give warrant satisfies the definition as (2).

We are also saying that the distinction between (1) and (2) must be mutually understood before there can be a meaningful debate about any specific opinion

[Cyberman]

I would say "that which gives warrant to a belief", rather than an opinion. Opinions can be baseless, and most often are.

[The Grand Nudger]

Testimony makes nothing evident, and is not a basic fact or observation.   It's (at least purportedly) a story -about- some basic fact or observation; as relayed by the issuer.

[Amarok]

that which gives warrant to a belief",

And so wooter will start his reformed epistemology BS . As if enough nails have not been have been hammered in thay coffin .

---

[Astonished]

Is testimony a fact? Can we start there before we start debating whether it's evidence? Isn't that kind of a minimum requirement? Why didn't we establish that beforehand?

[RoadRunner79]

I would say "that which gives warrant to a belief", rather than an opinion. Opinions can be baseless, and most often are.

I understand the distinction your are trying to make, but I think the same argument can be made for both.... justified belief or opinion perhaps would be better

---

Is testimony a fact? Can we start there before we start debating whether it's evidence? Isn't that kind of a minimum requirement? Why didn't we establish that beforehand?

If not, then the only facts are ones that you have personally observed, and they are no longer facts, once you transfer this information to another.

---

You missed my point.  The event is not the evidence. The event is the occurrence. If you're going to engage in discussion, it pays to use words in accordance with their definitions.

As for your second question, I've already mentioned in this thread that I think testimony may be evidence in some situations. If a person comes to a conclusion in the absence of evidence -- such as you or NS with regards to your faith -- that's your business. If you want to convince me of something, bring me evidence.

Roadrunner79 and I are in fact paying very close attention to definitions. The word evidence has two connotations: (1) that which is evident, i.e. basic facts and observations; and (2) that which given warrant to an opinion. We claim nothing more than the notion that personal testimony satisfies the definition as (1) and that a sufficient quantity of quality testimony can give warrant satisfies the definition as (2).

We are also saying that the distinction between (1) and (2) must be mutually understood before there can be a meaningful debate about any specific opinion

I do think that much of this  is mostly rhetoric, so that they can avoid evidence that is unpalatable to them without thinking.  Hence the constant shifting.  However try dismissing what they want to present as just testimony and no evidence, and see how quickly the name calling starts again.

[Cyberman]

And here we go again with the pre-emptive character assassination. I wonder why?

[Amarok]

Yup on schedule

And no road it's not the same for both.

[Edwardo Piet]

Testimony has to be backed up with other evidence.

Because it's not evidence!

P.S. If it was evidence it would stand on it's own at least as weak evidence.