- Humans acquire a vast amount of factual information through testimony, arguably more than they learn through experience.
- The extensive reliance on testimony is remarkable given that one often cannot verify testimonial information.
- What makes testimony distinct from storytelling is that it has an implicit or explicit assertion that the telling is true. The literary format and style of the Gospels is that of the ancient biography, a historiographic genre that was widely practiced in the ancient word. Thus, one can regard these accounts as a form of testimony.
A Natural History of Natural Philosophy (pp. 165-172)
A more plausible explanation is that young children are psychologically disposed to acquire knowledge through testimony and perception: the information received in this way is basic, in the sense that it is unreflective and not based on other beliefs. This leads them to the impression that they have always known these facts. Also, and perhaps more crucially, children do not make a distinction between knowledge acquired through testimony and knowledge acquired through direct experience.
…children treat testimony to scientific and religious beliefs in a similar way.
…children do not find religious testimony intrinsically more doubtful than scientific testimony.
The current empirical evidence indicates that testimony is a fundamental source of knowledge, similar to memory and perception (in line with antireductionism), but that children and adults are sensitive to cues for the reliability of informants (in line with reductionsim).
Books such as the recent Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne rely on this to be the case [that testimony is a fundamental source of knowledge], while at the same time denying that such knowledge counts as knowledge. Sadly, some commenters here at TSZ believe that Coyne’s “way to knowledge” is “the only way to knowledge.” Taking Coyne’s word for it is hardly convincing.
An argument for dialetheism:
(1) The Bible is the infallible Word of God;
(2) Everything God says is true;
(3) The Bible contains contradictions;
(4) Therefore, there are true contradictions.
See how easy it is? All you have to do is give up on the law of non-contradiction!
Sometimes Trinity is more than a bomb test site.
It seems to be that you are asking if Adam had a belly button. I’m am down with that and most of the Christians I know would be “down with it” as well
On the other hand if you are claiming that there is no objective difference between Humans and other Primates I would strongly disagree
peace
I completely agree, we need something to bridge the gap between God and the Bible we call that something the incarnation.
Without the incarnation the bible is just a fallible book like any other book. With the incarnation the Bible is an infallible revelation with a seal of authenticity from God himself.
IMHO the reason folks like you have a problem with the Bible is not because the Bible is unbelievable. It’s because you don’t “get” the incarnation.
peace
Seems like number 4 is is the unproven premise. It would have to be established for the syllogism to be valid. Good luck
I like this syllogism better
(1) The Bible is the infallible Word of God;
(2) Everything God says is true;
(3) In KNs opinion the Bible contains contradictions;
(4) Therefore, in this case KNs opinion is in error.
peace
And I like this one:
Fifth thinks the Bible is the infallible word of God and that every word in it is true.
But the Bible contains obvios inaccuracies as well as self-contradictions.
Therefore Fifth is wrong.
Hey Walto.
It seems that we agree that the rub is over the claim that the Bible contains contradictions and inaccuracies.
That would at first appear to be a testable proposition.
However as as been demonstrated so far in this thread often what one side deems to be an obvious inaccuracy or contradiction to the other side sees as nothing of the sort.
So we are left where we started as always with dueling worldviews. I don’t see any way to get around that fact.
That is why I really prefer not to beat the old culture war horse if we could avoid it.
Despite how it may appear from the recent discussions here I’d really much rather discuss science stuff.
However It seems that Atheists just can’t seem to get enough of religious discourse.
In fact I would make a prediction that it won’t be long before this site is on to yet another God topic. Probably it will be Old Testament genocide or the problem of evil
That sure seems to be the pattern here.
peace
Actually, it isn’t. It’s about testimony. I already pointed this out to keiths.
Next time make it a multiple choice quiz then, loaded with only the answers you want to hear as the available options. The point, meanwhile, is valid.
If you are going to criticize the text, then you should at least attempt to understand the text.
If you are going to criticize fifth for believing the text ought to be taken literally, then you should make sure he thinks the text ought to be taken literally.
If you cannot say why you think the texts ought to be taken seriously, then it is a good indication that you don’t think they are worth taking seriously. That might, just might, color your judgment.
I misread the title. I am not gifted at Doublespeak.
Now, don’t go all Wormtongue on me.
Here’s the question I did ask:
The current scientific consensus is that there was a species ancestral to Homo sapiens that was also ancestral to Pan on the order of five to ten million years ago.
Do you have reason to doubt the correctness of that consensus?
Doubtful. Another one that’s probably worth it’s own OP.
Why are you looking for truth, keiths? Is it worth it’s weight in gold? Are shares in truth traded on the stock exchange?
The title is what it is. And I also already explained to keiths where the title came from. The important question is, did you read the OP itself.
I have no reason at all to doubt the facts I have reason to doubt particular interpretations of those facts.
I could answer your question with a yes or no depending on what you mean by it.
I have absolutely no problem with the consensus as expressed in the scientific literature I have seen. I do have a problem with the interpretation of that consensus when I have seen it expressed by many atheists.
Do you mean to simply claim that Adam had a bellybutton and similar DNA to Chimpanzees?
or
Do you mean to say that there is no objective difference between Chimpanzees and humans?
That is the question I am asking
peace
Since you all seem to like discussing the Bible so much how about an example from the Bible.
If science demonstrated it, I would have no problem with the proposition that Jesus and James had the same patrilinal DNA,
But I would not concede that this disproved the virgin birth
I hope that helps you understand what I mean
peace
FMM:
The interpretation to which I refer, expressed in the current scientific consensus, is that on the order of five to ten million years ago there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and to Pan.
Are you down with that?
Neither. I neither made nor implied reference to navels, DNA, or differences objective or otherwise. I made no claim at all, other than the claim that it is the current scientific consensus that… (etc. etc.), with which I’m confident you’re familiar.
What I asked was, well, see above.
Mung quoted DeCruz:
A large body of empirical evidence indicates that memory, perception and testimony are all fragile and fallible sources of information. In fact, it is the malleability and suggestibility of memory and perception that render eyewitness testimony susceptible to error (not to mention deliberate deception). One result: eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of innocent people than all other sources of error combined.
See, for example, the review “Eyewitness Evidence – Improving Its Probative Value,” Gary L. Wells, Amina Memon, and Steven D. Penrod, Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
What I find instructive are the irreconcilable disagreements evident among Christians regarding the locality/univerality of Noah’s flood.
A quick perusal of the web finds sites like AIG that elaborately dispute FMM’s view, as well as others that support it. The argument is conducted by careful, but contrary parsings of the Biblical “testimony,” with no dispositive resolution and no method to attain one.
Which goes to the long forgotten topic of the OP, illustrating the weakness of testimony as a means to knowledge.
Yes, I saw this the first time you posted it.
And what did you have to say to the article on testimony from A Companion to Epistemology (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy)? Any response to Thomas Reid?
Our knowledge of the unreliability of memory, perception and testimony comes from testimony.
No primatologist or paleoanthropologist would deny that there are real differences in cognitive abilities between Pan troglodytes (and Pan paniscus or bonobos) and Homo sapiens. The question is, rather, what the differences really amount to and how best to explain them. Doing that requires comparative developmental psychology between living species, respecting the paleontological and archeological evidence currently available, some comparative neuroscience, and a solid understanding of contemporary evolutionary theory.
One can surely think both that there are real cognitive differences between human beings and other primates and also that there is a good evolutionary explanation of those differences, which will slowly come into better focus as we gather more evidence and establish more consilience between lines of evidence.
However, there is no reason to think that Genesis has any relevance to an understanding of those differences. Genesis differs from other ancient near eastern cosmogonies by virtue of God being less immediately tied to the sensible world — for example, He creates by speaking rather than by doing something with His hands (as Marduk does in Babylonian cosmogony — Marduk slaughters the dragon Tiamat and creates the heavens from one half her body and the earth from the other half).
That anyone would think that Genesis is relevant to understanding the cognitive differences between human beings and other primates is utterly beyond my comprehension. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around creationism for about twenty years now and it still seems as alien to me as the Azande belief in witches.
But I am equally baffled by those who think that the Bible has nothing significant to say just because it contains no scientific facts and few (if any) historical facts.
Mung:
No, our knowledge of the unreliability of memory, perception and testimony comes from replicable studies conducted by experimental psychologists, over several decades, many of whom were interested in the implications of that unreliability for the justice system, particularly trial testimony.
Mung, Reid’s a great phillosopher, and my old prof’s new book on him ‘Problems from Reid’ looks awesome. But there’s no real need for concern about warrant if one is sure at the outset that whatever is in the Bible must be true (whatever the heck it happens to mean–which, in turn, we can determine by checking the ultimate scientific consensus on any matter). Much simpler approach than Reid’s, and guarantees Biblical correctness on every issue.
Yes, you just contradicted yourself. Published studies, no doubt. Clearly distinct from testimony in that the studies were not meant to be taken seriously.
And you, at least, believed their testimony. Why? What makes their testimony believable?
By the way, when you read those studies, or the published accounts of those studies, did you trust your perception? And even now, as you try to convince me that I am wrong, are you not relying on your admittedly fallible memory?
You read something, using your admittedly unreliable perceptions, and are relaying your beliefs about what you read from your likewise admittedly unreliable memory. These testimonies you want me to accept are also admittedly unreliable, and are also no doubt based upon unreliable perception and unreliable memory.
Well, please forgive me if I don’t believe you then. Surely you can understand why.
Well,
I would say that there is no good evolutionary explanation of the differences as of yet. Perhaps someday.
What we have now is a promissory note that says someday we will explain the differences by purely “natural” forces. We will see if that note ever gets cashed.
I won’t hold my breath
That does not surprise me.
What surprises me is how anyone would think that materialistic processes could ever be called on to explain non-material differences. That is utterly beyond my comprehension.
Such a gap in our comprehensions is exactly what you would expect if we were looking at the facts from radically different worldviews.
From my worldview Scripture is exactly where one would look to explain the differences between humans and other creatures
peace
Mung:
As Petrushka observed, “Testimony is fine as long as it is consilient with observation.”
Testimony backed by systematic observational confirmation, and perhaps reporting that systematic observational confirmation, is a much stronger basis for knowledge than testimony alone. The experimental methods pioneered and utilized by experimental psychology are a gold standard of replicable, systematic observation.
Fortunately, you don’t have to rely upon my memory, perception or testimony. Rather, you may consult the literature to which I refer yourself, and check my reporting for accuracy. With enough time and effort you and others may replicate the analyses or even the studies themselves, as it is customary to include (or provide on request) both datasets and detail regarding methods and subjects sufficient for study replication.
But you’re right: testimony absent these or similar systematic, objective tests is a weak basis for knowledge.
Don’t act like an idiot. There is no possible way for anyone not himself to make sure what he thinks because it’s subjective (meaning only that it’s inside his head, not outside; not implying that it’s “not real”). It’s not my fault that Fifthmonarchyman can’t explain himself clearly enough to be understood by an interested witness — that’s me, hello! — it’s his fault, and you’ve been sharing the same fault, too. Since I cannot in fact read your minds to “make sure” what you or he intended to communicate, it’s up to you to clear out as much of the cryptic garbage as possible.
Or not. I don’t care. If you’re just here for the lulz, do feel free to be as sloppy as you wish.
you mean like this?
http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7cqJ/heineken-light-money-where-the-mouth-is-ft-neil-patrick-harris
peace
KN, I don’t know who – if anyone specific – you have in mind when you say “those who think …”
It could be one or more or all of the non-christians here at TSZ, but I can’t think of a single persona here whom I would dump into your category of people who dismiss the bible merely because it’s not scientific/historical.
Judging by the things I’ve said compared to the others, I’m the person here who holds the most vivid hatred for religion in general, christianity in particular, and for even wishy-washy christians as a populace who endanger us all by their implicit cover for extremism and terrorism in the name of god. Having said all that (repeatedly, here and elsewhere) I have never said and would never say that “bible has nothing significant …”
Buddha was not a christian but Jesus would’ve made a good buddhist.
Too bad he was weighed down by millennia of rabbinical culture. And too bad he was then made into the centerpiece of a corrupt imperialist, racist, and sexist church.
I don’t know why you’ve taken it upon yourself to vaguely scold some people, but I don’t like it. I don’t think it’s a good look on you. Sorry.
Don’t be an idiot (or a hypocrite) hotshoe_. Treat fifth like you would want to be treated. After all, we can’t possibly know what is inside your head, even if you put it in writing and publish it on a blog.
There’s no expectation of mind-reading ability on either side, but there is an expectation of reading and understanding and benefit of the doubt. You know, the “good faith” rule.
Now if what you are claiming is that when someone writes something here at TSZ we ought not take them to be telling the truth, we ought not assume that what they write is a reliable indicator of what they actually believe, then that is right there with the subject of the OP.
On any reasonable reading of what fifth wrote here, he does not take the flood to have covered the entire surface of the globe. Fifth is obviously speaking of local floods. And this is just one instance of many I could have quoted.
You are very insightful and express yourself with patience and kindness. I understand what you are saying and I deeply appreciate it. You are right that I’ve taken a very scolding tone lately and that doing so is not healthy. Thank you for asking me to look more closely at this part of myself.
Systematic observational “confirmation” based upon unreliable perception, unreliable memory and unreliable testimony.
I’ll take your word for it. By faith.
Using the same faulty methods you used I can obtain the same result you did!
The suggestion that I can make the same observations is absurd. And I should simply accept their testimony that their methods will overcome my unreliable perceptions, my unreliable memory and their unreliable testimony?
Please.
Your objections to perception, memory and testimony seem to be weakening. If I were you, I would stop trying to saw off the branch I’m sitting on. But I’m not you, so do carry on.
Given the unreliable nature of perception, memory and testimony, what makes these “tests” objective?
Just how should we quantify knowledge, and how do you know? Weaker/Stronger compared to what and based on what? Surely there are scientific answers to epistemological questions such as these!
When someone scolds me “who holds the most vivid hatred for religion in general, christianity in particular,” I think perhaps I am doing something right.
Perhaps KN is just expressing sarcasm.
Is hatred a barrier to rational thinking?
Here’s one line of thinking:
Religious believers are full of hate.
Their hatred makes them irrational
I hate them.
I have good reasons for my hatred.
In my response to hotshoe? No; I was being completely sincere. I have my disagreements with hotshoe, but she/he was right to point out that my condescending tone reflects an ugly part of myself.
No, but hate is a barrier to dialogue.
Well, I did say “Sorry” because I didn’t want you to feel bad. I’m sure you like yourself better when you perceive you’re being balanced and thoughtful, which you usually are. Really, it’s fine, it’s all fine. You’re not an angel but you’re on the side of the angels.
I’ll give Mung a point. Feeling hate is often a barrier to thinking; I’m pretty sure everyone of us has had the experience of “I was so angry I couldn’t think straight”.
But at the same time, it’s a stupid question from Mung. It’s obvious (or it should be obvious, I know I’m communicating clearly here) from my posts that I don’t usually stop thinking rationally when I’m angry/hate-filled. I mention my own emotional beliefs so that people won’t claim I have unexamined biases; I have my biases like anyone, but I know where they are, so I can work rationally around them.
I try not to do hate. I can spot ‘wrong’ a mile away though.
Yeah, that’s the trouble with you anti-science theist types. You only believe certain written information can possibly be valid.
You’re not claiming superpowers, now, are you Rich?
I’ve resisted commenting much on this thread because freedom of expression means allowing others the freedom to be wrong.
But then Lizzie encourages us to point out:
especially if there is supporting evidence.
Just as an aside, I went off this morning to drop some rubbish at the recycling centre to find it closed due to a jour férié that I’d forgotten about: The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Initially annoyed, I’m now amused to note that a supposedly secular country comes to an economic halt due to an imaginary event invented some three centuries later than it was alleged to have happened.
Someone objected to it, saying it was all an assumption.
The proponents said that was the whole point.
Glen Davidson
Your last question has a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.
.
There are philosophical answers as to why science is the best guide for justifying a belief as knowledge in the contingent world (to use KN’s phrase).
Do you deny that conclusion from philosophy?
The analysis of the conditions for the reliability of testimony is also philosophical (since it is about epistemological norms), but it must be informed by the relevant science, which RB has referenced.
And while I have your attention: I’m unclear on what you are arguing for. Are you saying that because all knowledge is sourced in testimony, that implies all testimony has an equal claim to be knowledge? That seems to me to be the subtext of your posts.
fifthmonarchyman,
What you call a worldview appears to be simply the unsupported assumption that the religion in which you were raised is unquestionably true. That’s not a worldview, it’s an abdication of reason and skepticism on one particular topic that has strong emotional impact for you.
hotshoe_,
Please don’t violate the site rules on assuming that others are posting in good faith. Do you have evidence that Mung is acting?
First off my religion has changed a lot since I was a child so I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I assume that the religion I was raised in is unquestionably true.
Secondly my worldview does not start with an assumption about religion at all but an assumption about the nature of reality.
i.e. That reality is in principle comprehensible.
As far as I know most here do not share this starting assumption but begin with the idea that the comprehensibility of reality something that we should be agnostic about.
At least one guy here finds the idea that the universe is inherently comprehensible to be absurd
I find that worldview to be incomprehensible
peace
Mung:
Yes. That’s why experimenters in psychology and social psychology use recordings, devise carefully standardized procedures, scripts and rating protocols, train observers, use multiple raters, employ statistical techniques to determine inter-rater reliability, submit manuscripts to peer review and so forth, all in an effort to mitigate the well-known fallibility of ordinary human perception, memory and testimony.
That’s a bad habit, particularly when you can ascertain for yourself the accuracy of my statements regarding the literature by investigating it yourself.
With respect to the research itself, that’s probably true. Performing and replicating experimental research, including research in psychology and social psychology, is hard work and requires considerable specialized training. Snark isn’t much help.
More generally, there is an unavoidable element of trust required on the part of non-specialists that the specialists in a given field are getting it right and that the checks and balances of replication are working, particularly when the questions are important. My daughter is working toward her doctorate in biophysics at Scripps in San Diego, and my glimpses into her research apprenticeship are the closest I’ll get to that process. She just got an article accepted by Structure, and I can tell you that the road to completing and publishing research that meets these professional scientific standards is long and arduous. It’s not a perfect system, but it is much more powerful means to knowledge than the alternatives, including bare testimony.
Their methods are designed to mitigate the experimenters’ own observational fallibility to ensure that their own data is sound, not your deficiencies. But yes – your perception and memory are as fallible as anyone else’s. That’s your problem. Knowing about the problem should confer a bit of humility and prompt you to be more careful about your testimony.
My first comments on the subject were that memory and perception are notoriously fallible, that a large body of empirical evidence indicates that memory, perception and testimony are all fragile and fallible sources of information. “Notoriously” indicates that the problem is well known (except by you). My next comments referred to the “weakness testimony as a means to knowledge” and observed that testimony apart from confirmation is the problem. Above I stated, “our knowledge of the unreliability of memory, perception and testimony” derives from replicable studies. And now I say that “testimony absent these or similar systematic, objective tests is a weak basis for knowledge.”
Where’s the weakening? Perhaps this is an instance of your faulty memory.
See above on methods (multiple raters, measures of interrater reliability, etc.)
In experimental research, by means of well known statistical measures of reliability. (Please don’t unfurl another dimwitted claim to paradox of the sort that seem to enthrall advocates of ID).
The quality of testimony bereft of objective confirmation is much more difficult to characterize, but there are cues that we use, e.g. consilient testimony from multiple independent witnesses, knowledge of the character and motives of the person giving the testimony, the presence and expectation of cooperative communication, circumstances such that the witness knows that the veracity of his/her testimony will ultimately become clear and in which the consequences of being found unreliable are aversive, content that meets minimal levels of plausibility, etc. Unfortunately, these are largely absent when considering Biblical testimony.
Fifth:
As above: The interpretation to which I referred, expressed in the current scientific consensus, is that on the order of five to ten million years ago there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and to Pan.
Are you down with that?
I already said (a couple of times) that I was down with the current scientific consensus as expressed in the scientific literature I have read. Did you miss it?
What I’m not “down with” is the inference that atheists often draw from that consensus
I’m not sure how I could state it any more clearly
peace
That’s great. So, garden of Eden, the whole 7 day creation story – just stories right?
What’s that inference then?
FMM:
That’s not responsive to my question.
You could say, “Yes, I accept the current scientific consensus, which is that on the order of five to ten million years ago there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and to Pan.”
Or, you could say, “No, I don’t accept the current scientific consensus, which is that on the order of five to ten million years ago there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and to Pan.“
I suppose one problem with that might be, for example, if you’ve only read a certain sub-section of the “scientific literature”. Which is why RB is quite right to ask what particular consensus is it you are expressing agreement with?
lol
I don’t myself know what I am arguing for. 🙂
It seems pretty obvious to me that perception, memory, and testimony are all common sources of knowledge that we all rely upon. I think it truly odd that I should have to argue at all that this is the case. But that is what I am arguing for (in contrast to arguing against).
No I am not saying all knowledge is sourced in testimony. But a very great deal of our knowledge is, and I do think that is undeniable.
I’ll follow up with more in a response to Bill.
For further study: