How is it unique? You've given no reason for your belief. I again affirm that it is just making explicit the ceteris paribus nature of principles.
But I don't see it as stating "all things being equal" because it's not a qualifier for a typical context: in most contexts, there would be a reason to disbelieve most people's testimony. All things being equal ... there is typically a reason. So for there to exist the absence of
any reason to disbelieve someone's testimony, I would need an example to look at. The example which you provided doesn't fit the criteria, because there is reason to disbelieve a person who is a complete stranger to me, and stops me and tells me there is an accident up ahead. All things being equal, it may be a rather common occurrence and so I may take for granted the idea they may be lying or some such, and I'd probably assume they were telling the truth. However, that doesn't mean that in that situation there exists the absence of ANY reason to disbelieve them. Because there does exist reason to disbelieve them: I'm not yet witnessing the accident, for one. So your example doesn't match the criteria. This is what I mean by the qualifier needing more clarification, because the clarification you are giving it doesn't seem to fit it. If you want to keep referring to ceteris paribus (which I understand to be "all things being equal") to explain the qualifier, it's not jiving with me. I've explained why. I don't think it's the same as the qualifier.
If we want to examine testimony in itself, then accidental aspects that apply to some testimony and not others cannot be a legitimate concern. Providing such reasons to disbelieve shifts the focus from testimony to some other aspect (such as Cearbhall's "crisis"). Crisis has nothing to do with testimony in itself, it has to do with some kinds of testimony.
So what kinds of testimony are being described here then ? Someone claiming that they witnessed supernatural beings descending from a building, is a bit different from someone who is warning of an accident up ahead. One is more extraordinary, and one is more mundane. I'm sure you are no stranger to the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While I'm not going to state that as a law, I do find the concept holds up quite often, in that what is extraordinary to someone is often met with a desire to substantiate it with equally extraordinary evidence/proof/etc. So in a similar way that crises has to do with some kinds of testimony, depending on what types of testimony you are referring to here (religious for example) then the reasons to disbelieve do become factors. That's reality.
Cearbhall failed to respect the qualifier, which means he failed to respect the ceteris paribus nature of principles (and arguments in general), which in laymen's terms means that he presented a strawman.
Well I'm assuming you're talking to me and not Cearbhall so perhaps focus on what we are talking about.
Okay good. Again you're mixing the two principles, but I don't disagree with your conclusion.
K.
They may say "I don't believe it" when they win the lottery, but that is a turn of phrase. Do you think they actually are expressing their beliefs? If they are, then presumably they would not claim their prize.
I may argue they are actually expressing their beliefs. Later, their beliefs may catch up with the reality they are facing, so they would claim their prize.
Consider the stages of grief: denial is often one of the stages of grief. It's not that the person isn't living in "reality" however parts of them have not come to terms with it, thus I'm not sure if one could point definitively to their belief and say, "Yes they fully believe in reality at this moment." After all, they may be in denial ... denying some aspect of reality while consenting to a related aspect at the same time. Could I definitively state what a person's "belief" actually is or isn't in such a context ? I'd probably say that I couldn't ... but I may argue a person could be justified in questioning whether or not they actually believe what is happening, even while going along with it. There is a reason things can seem unreal, surreal, unbelievable, and take time to accept, come to terms with, understand, believe, acknowledge, etc. Belief is arguably often a result, not necessarily a cause.
Presumably you mean "and there is complete absence of any reason to disbelieve them"?
Yes it was a mistype. I meant to say "disbelieve". I've been making a lot of mistypes lately ... laziness and distraction.
I did provide an example
here, in my very first post. I think it is a good example.
I think as an example it doesn't satisfy the Principle as stated, so I don't think it's a good example, as I described above.
I could phrase the question in another way: abstracting from extraneous variables, is testimony in itself evidence for belief? If the only piece of data you possess is the testimony, ought you believe?
Based on just what you've said here and forgetting the qualifier of the "principle" ... absolutely not. If the only piece of data you possess, is the testimony of someone ... "ought you believe ?" ... no. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. But ought you to ? No, not necessarily. Testimony, as stated by others ... is very unreliable, even from well meaning individuals. In my experience, a person who recalls an event or gives an account may be able to give a more accurate description if they have had training in how to observe, think critically, etc (consider medical professionals, law enforcement, etc) ... but even then, depending on the context such people can be just as unreliable as the next person. And of course there are those who intentionally set out to deceive, obviously.
Testimony in itself isn't evidence for belief, it is evidence that a person is making a claim about something that has yet to be substantiated. Some may take that and formulate a belief from it, but some may not. Some may be claiming what they/themselves believe, and in that regard I could see how testimony itself is evidence for belief. That would be like saying, "Is a person saying they have a belief, evidence they have a belief ?" Maybe. Can testimony be accurate and describe truth ? Of course. Can it be false ? Of course. Will people trust each other on word alone ? Of course. Ought they ? Not necessarily.
