Evidence and testimonial: A fundamental split

I would suggest that there seems to be a fundamental split (at the broadest level) in what constitutes evidence and/or proof for various phenomena or historical events between both camps on this board.In this thread, I would like to concentrate on one particular area, the use of the testimonial in all its forms — oral, written and video. For the creationists, it would seem that those are valid forms of evidence and carry equal weight in determining validity with lab tests, experiments etc.It would appear to me (on first glance), that this is a nature consequence of a testimonial-based faith system.I would ask the following (to both evo and creo):1) Under what circumstances do you consider testimonial evidence to be good evidence? (And the reverse)

​

2) Is it, as I muse above, a natural consequence of being part of a faith-based system? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-09-2004 10:40 AM

Mr.Jacks - thanks for the reply (I've changed it from red to bold - hope that helps).I'm unclear which point you disagree with? is it the influence of a faith-based system.Ocean finance,eh? you've got to stop reading daytime TV...

Good point, on that note, there was an experient run a few years ago. People leaving disneyworld were shown a video set inside the park and showing various characters (mickey mouse and the like).However when shown fake footage of non-disney characters, most swore blind that they were in the park!This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-19-2004 04:20 PM

No not really - take my disney example, I could show as many people as I want the fake videos, a large percentage are always going to get it wrong. If I have 1,000,000 people giving the wrong answer does that make it any less wrong? Plus people's testomony tends to influence others and how they recall events:http://www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?03742In regards to video - many people remember seeing the redness of the blood in the shower scene in pyscho.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-19-2004 04:41 PM

But Jason, the taste of honey will depend on 101 factors - and would still be entirely sunjective.A chemical analysis of various honeys would allow us to identify like for like.

Here is that disney study:http://abcnews.go.com/.../scitech/DyeHard/Dyehard010627.htmlI'll try and find the actual study results later.

I also fail to see the connection.

Come Jason - that is still not the same thing at all.When a claim is made in science, the first thing that 100s of scientists will try and do is disprove that idea (because it upset their own views on the subject). Then people will try and disprove their results. This is the whole basic of the peer-review process - it acts as both an "honesty" check and a "validaity".That's why someone like Ron Wyatt saying "I had a chariot wheel but I lost it" and "I had the blood of jesus but lost it" is not taken seriously.