Testimony

 

If you want a testimony, you are going to have a test.

The philosophy of testimony considers the nature of language and knowledge's confluence, which occurs when beliefs are transferred between speakers and hearers through testimony. Testimony constitutes words, gestures, or utterances that convey beliefs. By this article I would like to present about brief introduction of testimony, what is testimony, and I would like to talk about the caption I use for this article and at the last I discuss about what are the philosophical issues concerning testimony. 😏😏😏

What is testimony? 🤔🤔🤔 

In the field of philosophy, testimony is defined as the intentional transfer of a belief from one person to another. The transfer can be verbal, written, or signaled in some way. Issues concerning the epistemology of testimony have become increasingly discussed in contemporary philosophy, with the debate widening out from epistemology to other fields such as philosophy of mind, action theory, and philosophy of language.

Testimony

The expression 'testimony' in everyday usage in English is confined to reports by witnesses or by experts given in a courtroom, or other formal setting. But in analytic philosophy the expression is used as a label for the process by which knowledge or belief is gained from understanding and believing the spoken or written reports of others generally, regardless of setting. In a modern society testimony thus broadly understood is one of the main sources of belief. Very many of an individual's beliefs are gained second-hand: from personal communication, from all sorts of purportedly factual books, from written records of many kinds, and from newspapers, television and the internet. Testimony enables the diffusion of current news, information (or misinformation), opinion and gossip throughout a community with a shared language. It also enables the preservation and passing on of our accumulated heritage of knowledge and belief: in history, geography, the sciences, technology, etc. We would be almost unimaginably epistemically impoverished, without the resources provided by testimony in its various forms. 

Philosophy of Testimony 🤔🤔🤔

IF YOU WANT A TESTIMONY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A TEST.

This statement was made by Joyce Meyer. As I see it, this statement is largely true. But sometimes we can find testimony from previous tests. As Joyce Meyer points out here, I do not see the need to examine yourself if you need testimony. You can get another person to check and get testimony.

What are the philosophical issues concerning testimony?

When testimony is trustingly accepted by an individual, she acquires beliefs through it. In a modern society, very many of an individual's beliefs are derived directly from testimony, or depend for their grounding on other beliefs so derived. Are these beliefs derived from testimony ever justified, and apt to be knowledge? The primary concern of philosophy regarding testimony is epistemological: to explain the status as potentially justified and knowledgeable.

Beliefs dependent on testimony. - Or, if the upshot is skeptical, to show why such beliefs are not apt to be justified and knowledgeable.

Descriptive psychology will tell us what human belief acquisition through testimony is actually like, and what extent of dependence on testimony our belief systems actually exhibit. Given this distinction, we can divide our central issue about testimony along two dimensions, yielding four distinct questions to investigate.

• Descriptive Local Question

How do human hearers typically form belief in response to testimony? In particular, do they just trust their informant unthinkingly, blindly; or do they somehow (consciously, or sub-consciously) evaluate the informant for trustworthiness, and believe what they are told only if the evaluation is positive? (The process of testimony).

• Normative Local Question

In what conditions, and with what controls, should a mature adult hearer believe what she is told, on some particular occasion? (Fresh instances of testimony, for an adult hearer.).

• Descriptive Global Question

What is the actual place of testimony-beliefs overall, in a person's structure of empirical belief? What is the extent of dependence on testimony for grounding (epistemic dependence) of our beliefs? And what is the relation between testimony and our other sources of empirical belief: perception, memory, and deductive and inductive inference from empirical premises?

•     Normative Global Question

How, if ever, can a system of beliefs with uneliminated epistemic dependence on testimony be justified?

Testimony is an invaluable source of knowledge. ... This leads to the development of a theory that gives proper credence to testimony's epistemologically dual nature: both the speaker and the hearer must make a positive epistemic contribution to testimonial knowledge.

Dinesh Shiwantha Wanigathunga

dineshshiwantha@gmail.com