Thank you very much,
I agree that testimony seems to us like something true. The question, of course, is what is the justification for our trust in this tool.
I think that whereas regarding sight one can say that it is simply an axiom, regarding testimony it is a bit less plausible to claim and regard it as a real axiom… no? Moreover, whereas sight depends on a rigid framework of laws of nature, testimony depends on our trust in human beings, and they have free choice, so it is less plausible to say that it is an axiomatic assumption, and you also do not see it as necessary.

As for the proof from experience, I didn’t understand what the proof here is. After all, even if until now it has worked out (and as I said, presumably that assumption too is circular, because it depends on relying on testimony; for example, our assumption that radio station A usually tells the truth is formed by cross-checking with station B or a newspaper, but certainly not by manually and independently checking on the ground).
In any case, even if until now it has worked, that certainly does not mean it will work the next time with the random witness who happens to be there.
As David asked today regarding ordinary analogy.

I don’t see where this strange discussion is going. If you want to raise skeptical claims—I can already tell you here that there is no answer to them. If you are not a skeptic, then there is no question. So as far as I’m concerned, I have nothing to add. Everything has been explained.

No, this isn’t really a classic skeptical claim, but a straightforward question: what do you think is the source of the justification for testimony?
It is very strange to claim that it is just an axiom, as you wrote at the outset… That is not very different from someone saying he believes in the Torah as an axiom. And the claim that we learn it from experience is not clearly enough to explain it. (On the assumption that testimony cannot be trusted.) And in particular, that only justifies our trust in it after the fact, but not from the outset.

I’m asking this simply because after this line of thought, I saw someone who seemed to me to be claiming that it is an axiom, but that sounds puzzling, for the reasons I explained.

On the other hand, perhaps it is an a priori assumption about reality that the Holy One, blessed be He, implanted in us / the “eyes of the intellect,” or something synthetic like analogy (or at its base, analogy as learning from experience). I also thought that someone who believes in moral realism could strengthen the giving of trust to testimony, especially in a case where the other person has no interests that would motivate lying (and then a slope toward truth is created).
So I am interested in your opinion, because this is a subject many of whose proofs are circular (proving trust in testimony X based on testimony Y)…