Testimony is Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

But, RR...what is it with this false dichotomy of "evidence" or "not evidence?"  Why isn't, "perhaps reasonable to accept as sufficient evidence for some claims, but not others," a rational option to you?   Is it because then you have no choice but to talk about the fact that testimony's value as evidence is fully intertwined with the nature of the claim?

You're trying to tease out two concepts as though one follows the other in chronological order of discussion (first establish if testimony is evidence, then talk about various claims).  These concepts don't exist in separate vacuums in that way.  They are synergistic in nature, and so it makes no logical sense to talk about them like they're not. Unless you have an agenda, ofc...

It's not a false dichotomy.  The choice is A or !A, which is the law of identity.  Now if you mean, that all testimony is not evidence, or not good evidence.  Then I agree, and I think that can be discussed as well.  I also think that we can have evidence in support of contradictory claims although both conclusions cannot both be true at the same time in the same way.  

As to your last paragraph would this apply to anything that is considered evidence?  That we cannot talk about it being evidence, until we discuss what it is evidence for.  Do we decide what is true by the evidence, or what is evidence, by what we believe is true?   I believe it is the former.