science is not the only a stick for truth because there are other sources of knowledge and for me
this is the most frustrating is that people don't Billy people are not even bothered to read a basic
philosophy book philosophy 101 if you're 16 years old and you know by a a level standard
book on epistemology the study of knowledge and you would see that there are other sources of
knowledge other than just touching and feeling things one of them include testimony believe it
or not they say so of others and let me summarize what I'm saying with what happened a few years
ago with Professor Lawrence Krauss so obviously I did a few mistakes as well people change if
you're the same person you were four years ago then you have issues so you know I follow kind
of a Bruce Lee philosophy you should be like a river they keep on flowing right so I'm not the
same person you don't step in the same river twice as they say because it's changing isn't
it yeah but anyway there are some good things to learn from that discussion with mr. Krauss
and I said to cross hey Krauss I didn't do it that way but you know I mean said hey professor
Krauss you have a metaphysical presupposition you think that truth is as a result of what you touch
and fill so yes of course I'm a scientist and I said fine but there are other sources of knowledge
he said like what and I said testimony and he sniggered at me he said I just do the science
and I said well do this science do you believe in evolution he said yes of course I follow the
evidence and I said to him have you done all the experiments yourself have you done all the science
yourself and then he paused everybody started to laugh at him or lots of people start to laugh at
him why because they exposed his metaphysical presupposition it is true that he has to rely
on the say-so of other scientists because he ain't gonna do the science himself and if you
rely just on your own experiments and you've done directly you will never have the science you have
today and that's the beauty of human knowledge you have to rely on other people and that's why if you
study the scientific method you would see that a key part of the scientific method are the sayings
of other scientists are the conclusions of other scientists now you may claim yes but this studies
are repeatable and they have been repeated if you haven't repeated it you self it's still the say
so of others it could be one scientist of 500 the fact that they are telling you the basis of that
knowledge is not empirical it's the say-so of others now what's very interesting there's been
a revival in Western epistemology on the issue of testimony in the past 30 to 40 years for example
you had the 1991 book by Professor Cody he wrote the book testimony a philosophical discussion and
he basically argues that testimony is not only a source of knowledge it's a fundamental source
of knowledge it's fundamental it's indispensable and so he basically argues that testimony is not
only useful but it's a fundamental source and he calls David Hume the famous Scottish skeptic
that disagrees with professor Cody and David Hume basically says look testimony is useful
for the wise man but we only accept testimony we only accept testimony because it's in line with
our collective experiences so professor Cody being a genius what does he say he has hold on
mr. David Hume what do you mean by collective experiences because the only way to understand
other people's experiences is to ask them and they'll tell you so he he's actually shown that
testimony the say-so of others is fundamental to knowledge because if David Hume is saying that
yes testimonies used for by it's not fundamental because it has to be in line with our collective
experiences well how do you know what people's collective experiences are it's only by testimony
so it's a really good book that you should read that shows that testimony is fundamental now by
the way testimonial knowledge could be wrong just like I empirical knowledge could be wrong I'm not
saying it's accurate I'm saying it's a fundamental source now what we have to do to find out what
constitutes valid testimonial knowledge that's a different philosophical discussion and whatsoever
interesting you have many talking about this dr. Elizabeth fricker she makes a really good point
she says look given my limitations as a parametric given that I'm a limited human being I can't know
everything I have to rely on earth authority of others which is simple as that Benjamin McMeel
associate associate professor Benjamin Michael Miley he says that in order to have testimonial
knowledge the one who's giving the knowledge has to basically have the responsibility of referring
back to people's challenges and the audience that's receiving the testimonial knowledge
they have to basically is within their right to challenge the one who's giving the testimonial
knowledge you have for example America professor Keith Lera he's brilliant you know he says he
says in order for testimonial knowledge to be valid or to be constituted as knowledge you
have to be trustworthy in your assessments on the trustworthiness of others now if a lot of you know
about Islamic theology this is in line with what Muslims have been discussing for 1400 years in the
study of prophetic traditions animal hadith when we talk about the trustworthiness of the reporter
anyway I want too much in testimony the point is testimonial knowledge is a fundamental source of
knowledge and I want to end it this part by asking you a question how do you know China exists many
of us it fundamentally based on testimonial knowledge even if you have pictures even if you
have images on a map someone told you that's the picture of Chinese people and China and even if
you made Chinese person today oh you have to just believe what they said it's testimonial really
also what's testimonial is your mother being the one that gave birth to you you have zero proof
that I would tell me have a DNA test certificate because you don't and if you did that's still
testimonial it's a certificate a testimony that someone did something you didn't do yourself right
so from that point of view higher your mother gave birth to you you only know because of testimonial
evidence the fact that your dad told you the Midwife told you there's a certificate they
may be a video right the video is not empirical because you didn't come out like a bro did you
with the beard and glasses and a laptop imagine that would be a miracle God exists right so you
didn't you a capitated from your mother's womb like that were you know you had a different face
obviously for Makita so yeah so from that point of view someone have to tell you hey
that was you and you were a child so when it comes to things like China and existence
that the fact that you believe that your mother gave birth to you so test them
on your knowledge so it's not true that science is the only source of of truth e
on the yardstick for truth because we have other sources of knowledge like testimony