Testimony as a Source of Knowledge

We do not claim that it is ‘scientific’ knowledge. It is the denialist’s error that proclaims that scientific truth is all there is or that it is the only kind of knowledge that matters. We all know, or should know, that it is silly to demand material proof for the immaterial, especially when we are talking about God, who is personal and who has a will, a will that we cannot manipulate.

It is quite analogous to the courtroom where testimony is integral to its proceedings, perjury is a felony, you are a jury of one and truth can indeed be demonstrated and determined. We have talked about the Perpetrator’s M.O. elsewhere.

1 Like

I did not say you did.

I am asking for demonstrations of sources of knowledge other than the ones I have listed.

You have failed to do so. But thanks for trying!

1 Like

Actually, it is you that have failed to recognize that testimony is indeed a source of knowledge.

(Your jury of one is giving the wrong verdict.)

It isn’t. The ability to store and share knowledge adds power to scientific endeavour but it is not new knowledge itself.

I didn’t say new knowledge. And testimony is a source of knowledge, just not necessarily scientific knowledge. That again is the denialist’s argument and error, that scientific knowledge is the only kind that there is or that is important.

Isn’t! Your turn.

We agree, then :slightly_smiling_face::

Why do you call me a denialist? What, specifically, am I denying? I’m just asking what other ways of knowing there are.

I guess because, or at least I infer, that you believe that there is no evidence, or evidence that you will allow, for the existence of the immaterial.

Well, I don’t think there can be evidence for things that don’t impinge on the real.world. It’s definitional.

Your definition is wrong? There is evidence of impingement, except you just believe that there is not and cannot be, and disallow and deny that there is.

How does “testimony” differ from the accepted sources of knowledge that I have already listed? To what “knowledge” does it give us access that cannot be accessed by the other methods I have listed?


You are in a jury. There is evidence given by testimony, evidence to which there is no other access, but you didn’t think it worth listening to so you slept through it or put your denialist earbuds in. :slightly_smiling_face:

I may have neglected to reiterate that testimony is evidence when it is true. That is precisely why perjury is a felony.

And how do we know whether it is true? Thru logic and the scientific method, two of the sources of knowledge I have already mentioned.

Without those, “testimony” is just something someone is saying. It is not knowledge.

1 Like

Some people tell the truth and impart their knowledge to others – teachers, for instance. You never had a teacher you respected and trusted?

How do we know testimony is true. From supporting evidence (including other testimony).

Testimony is not exclusively verbal, either (although I suppose it probably is in terms of courtrooms). There is the testimony of our senses, which is not always to be trusted. As an M.D., you likely have heard of the condition called synesthesia?

Photographs are testimony too – they can be altered, and they can be deceptive without alteration, as well.

Exactly. IOW, thru the the methods I have already listed: Logic, math, direct observation, and science.

You have failed to produce another method.

1 Like