<<I certainly put much more weight in logic and experimental evidence than in
eyewitness testimony. As someone once said, "if you listen to two eyewitness
accounts of an auto accident, you will think twice about history".>>
Oh? That person was not very informed about history.
How do you know the Revolutionary War happened? Not logic; not experimental
evidence. No, you have recorded testimony. .
How do you know Ben Franklin lived? Attilla the Hun? Caesar?
Think about it, and you'll see it's not logic or experiments, but written and
oral testimony.
Another reason the statement above belies ignorance is that when you have
mutliple eye witnesses the question is NOT the reality of the event, but only
the details. IOW, we know the auto accident happened. And if FOUR people saw
it, and reported it, we would accept it as a certainty.
Right?
So then, what about the details? Well, they might differ, they might not. But
if four out of four all agree on the major details--e.g., the light was red,
the blue car was speeding, the white car was making a left turn--then, once
again, you have a virtual CERTAINTY.
That's life. So you don't really depend more on logic and experiments in this
realm. In most things, you depend on testimony, too.
Now, are you willing to go through the standard testimonial tests as applied
to ancient documents?
Jim