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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
: