Talk:Philosophy of testimony

Excessive Reliance on Coady

I think the initial definition is much improved, but this short entry suffers from relying too heavily on Coady's take on testimony. Since (and in part thanks to) Coady's book, a great deal of literature on testimony has appeared. Oxford has a forthcoming anthology on the subject, edited by Lackey. At some point, the entry should reflect the current state of the literature. --Ignat 15:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Initial definition

Testimony is not taken to be "evidence presented through the words or utterances of others" any more then perception is taken to be "evidence presented through ones experience of the world". The testimony is the words or utterances themselves rather then the evidence presented though those words, just as perception is the experience itself rather then the evidence presented though the experience/words. This is important, for example, Testimony can misinform, you can be told an untruth (accedentaly or purpously), in which case the testimony fails to be evidence for what it professes it remains testimony all the same. --JK the unwise 15:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that it is too broad. On that definition, any meaningful utterance, including commands, questions, etc. would count as testimony. "Evidence" does not mean "good evidence". Perhaps that will help make clear that the notion of evidence is needed in describing testimony and remove the concern that by including the notion of evidence one is somehow not allowing for the possibility of testimony misinforming, etc. That testimony can misinform was emphasized by Hume, for example. Ignat 16:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Good point. I still disagree a bit though.

The definition as it stands claims that testimony refers to the evidence derived from words/utterances. This is incorrect as the testimony is the words/utterances, it is not some other thing that is dervived from the words/utterances. This could be fixed by saying that testimony is "the words or utterances of others that are evidence".

Having discused it with other people I think you may be right that evidence is not factive (it doesn't implie truth of what it is evidence for). However I think it is still a controvercial issule whether a lie is evidence for the proposition it expresses, one might say it is evidence to some one who takes me to be honest but not evidence to some one who knows I am a lier. If evidence is non-factive then it seems that it must be understood as evidence for x or for y.

At any rate there is still a problem because words/utterances can be evidence for something without being testiomonyly so, for example my asking "Were's the bloody chicken!" can be evidence that i am upset/mad but this is not the kind of evidence that we are looking for. Prehaps this can be sovled by making testiomony equal "words/utterances that are evidence for the propositions they express".

At any rate we must ask who the utterances must be evidence for (the speeker/the audiance/a perfectly informed audiance/etc.) .... Any way these are all live issules in the philosphy of testiomy and we shouldn't really be doing orriginal reasurch here, rather we should be reflecting the debate as it is. So prehaps some of what I have said is redundant. We need a carecterisation that is neutral between a presentation like Burges which says that testiomy is "any intelligible utterance which presents something as true" and Graham who claims that it is any intelligble utterance that is 1.offered as being true 2.intended (by the utterer) to be belived based on judgement about her competance and 3. belived by the utter--JK the unwise 13:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poor Article

This article fails entirely to achieve the goal of an encyclopaedia. Having read it, and having a fairly good understanding of the basics of epistemology and law, I have absolutely no idea what it means. For example, the introductory sentence is hopeless:

• "In philosophy, testimony includes any words or utterances that are presented as evidence for the claims they express."

Let's think of a claim: "The rose is red". What evidence can the utterances "the", "rose", "is" and "red" represent to support the claim "the rose is red"? Without better expression or elucidation, the sentence is completely meaningless.

• "This definition may be distinguished from the legal notion of testimony in that the speaker does not have to make a declaration of the truth of the facts (see testimony)."

What on earth does this mean? ElectricRay 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)