Evidence and testimonial: A fundamental split

Jasonb,The fact that some can make incorrect conclusions based on evidence points out a fundamental difference between testimony and evidence.Testimony is evidence and conclusion wrapped into one, (and sometimes only conclusion). There is no way for someone to objectively reanalyze testimony.Evidence itself has no taint of conclusion on it, so though incorrect conclusions can be made based on evidence, the evidence itself remains non-subjective and can thus be reanalyzed, reinterpreted, and recreated.My point- Human fallability does not break the line between the reliability of testimony and evidence, since the former is subjective, and the latter objective.

CK- I understand your frustration, especially given the countless cries of "but you didn't see the video" or "I heard his interview/lecture" resounding across this forum. Unfortunately those using these as 'evidence' don't realize that they're actually giving 'testimony of testimony'.More important for understanding some of the discussions here:
Perhaps it also explains why, when someone gives a citation of a peer-reviewed journal article as a source of evidence, many state things like, "Well why should I trust that author any more than you?" or ask for his qualifications, or some appeal to authority (or lack thereof) fallacy.What seems sad is that many seem to disrespect people doing real science and publishing in peer-reviewed journal because of the fact that they do not have a huge public personality, complete with flashy websites and videos-for-sale. Apparently if such a website doesn't come up on a web-search, the scientist can't be very important in some mindsets.It would be helpful if some realized that real scientists are quite 'quiet' about their work, and don't have time to write books and make videos for the public, at least not in the first thirty years of their career, and even later-life layman's offerings are a rarity.However, I think I'll side with Mr.Jack on the lack-of-education side, as opposed to the faith-based argument. I think all of us were formally educated via testimony at some point, and many throughout high school and college. Many do not outgrow the "teacher is the source of knowledge" mindset that is learned in elementary school.(Though, I believe in the US there is an inverse relationship in the population between formal education and religious belief, so your hypothesis may be correct by correlation if not causation.)You bring up an important topic - hopefully its effects will trickle down at least a little into other discussions...

First-hand knowledge is grand, but when you testify to your personal knowledge, or someone else's personal knowledge, the result is subjective, likely anecdotal, and quite possibly incorrect. Exactly. You'd be showing her the evidence. You wouldn't be giving her testimony.However, that does not make the gravity-related equations incorrect or unimportant. It also does not mean that they are 'testimony', since they are objective and remain verifiable.

But it is sometimes (and apparently often) wrong, which is why we rely on veriable objective evidence. It isn't scary. That's the difference between testimony and evidence.The DNA test is objective and does not require reliable memory, while the bugs bunny test is based on past memory and therefore subjective.

Not in the world of science - we take the evidence into consideration.When I read a scientific paper, it is a very rare instance when I accept everything in it, especially the details of the conclusions, even though they are based on results within the paper. Also, individual experiments are sometimes carried out in a problematic manner (sometimes accidentally, sometimes because of necessity), and thus the data carries some qualification to the trained scientist.Sometimes I read a paper and arrive at an entirely different set of conclusions than the authors, based on their evidence.Scientists do not communicate with conclusions, they do so with data - if you've ever been to a scientific seminar you know what I'm talking about. They might be the same people, but in the Disney experiment they are communicating with testimony, and in science they are communicating via evidence.Thus their flaws in memory-based testimony do not apply to evidence-based conclusions.