You seem to have missed what was between the parentheses.
And testimony does not need to be totally corroborated. Supporting evidence only needs to help to establish the testimony’s or the witness’s trustworthiness.
You never learned anything from your parents but were compelled to validate every single bit of knowledge – scratch that – every single bit of testimony that they related. They imparted no knowledge to you. You must have been a busy kid.
That would be thr using direct observation, logic and the scientific method.
“Testimony” is just something we can observe. We need to use the same methods to interpret and understand it as we do any other observation. I really don’t see what point you are trying to make.
This is a silly argument. Even dictionaries and maps are testimony. You have to and do trust them. You don’t personally validate them, you believe them. Stop kidding yourself that you don’t get knowledge from testimony.
I’m not. Scientific papers are also a form of testimony.
I am not saying that we do not use testimony. Scientific papers are also a form of testimony.
“Testimony” is just one of the forms of data to which we apply the means of knowing I have listed. It is not by itself a source of knowledge, any more than would be a scientific paper that failed to support its claims with any empirical evidence.
Does that clarify my position?
It seems to me that you have modified your position. Of course in itself it is not ‘the source’ of knowledge, it is a report of knowledge. But for all practical purposes, it is the source. If I told you something about myself that no one else knew or could otherwise verify, my testimony, in effect, is the source of knowledge for you. Likewise for testimony in general.
I am not addressing that question.
Within the epistemic system known as “logic”, we can know things.
I wasn’t addressing you – it was not a reply but an open question.
Not just by testimony, no.
If you told a blind person there was a unicorn standing in front of him, he would not believe you most likely.
What other source do you suggest?
I’ve already explained it too many times. G’bye.
I haven’t read back in the thread. I’ll miss you. 
Where? You haven’t explained it enough times that I have found any.
Dale and everyone else,
Please refrain from accusations that people are evading your arguments based on their non-responsiveness or if they no longer want to argue with you. Simply stop responding to them and turn to other topics and/or interlocutors.
You still appear to be avoiding answering, unless you are referring to logic and the scientific method. Direct observation is obviously excluded. What do you suggest the blind person use as input on which to use logic and the scientific method?
a) Testimony
b) All of the above.
(@dga471: This reply should be moved over here, I suppose… not that it matters that much: Reply to Faizal Ali)
How else does the blind person know that red exists, except by testimony that they trust? If someone told them that there was a unicorn standing front of them, I hope they would have reason to distrust that testimony. (They could ask to touch its head and horn, I suppose. 
)
Look in the other thread that was split from this one: “Testimony as a source of knowledge.” I’m not wasting my time by repeating what I have already written, and what you have already read.
I think his point is by the mutual corroboration from many independent lines of testimony. Key word there is independent. Yes, testimony is a form of evidence, and can produce knowledge.
But what does it really mean to say that red exists? Is red it’s own thing that can just exist in the absense of everything else, or a property of your mind interpreting some sensory input? I think the blind person can be justified in claiming to know that other people have the experience of seeing the color red.
That knowledge, which is a form of belief justified by the evidence of testimony, is then held in proportion to how good the evidence is. That is to say, the fact that many independent individuals are testifying to the experience of seeing the color red is much more likely on the hypothesis that they really are experiencing seeing the color red, than on any competing hypothesis.
You could be talking about electromagnetic radiation of a particular wavelength that we see as red, and then you could add things like instrument readings and so on to the evidence for the existence of redness as a form of electromagnetic radiation.
In real life, the blind person would just accept the testimony and recognize that their experience is impaired. In normal conversation, we would say that the blind person knows that red exists. Do we really want to say that they don’t? Reality happens without the need to dissect it philosophically with esoteric rigor.