Testimony is Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

What I find paticularly interesting here, is the number of criticisms which state I am ignoring the evidence, which comes in the form of testimony, when the same people are arguing that I shouldn't  accept testimony as evidence. The psychology and logical abilities  of some people is fascinating!

What I find particularly interesting here is the degree to which you seem to be too dim to grasp the point that you not accepting testimony as evidence IS the point. I'm very interested in hearing an alternative explanation where this has not actually escaped you AND you're not being dishonest in pretending not to comprehend it.

I'll accept 'English is not my first language' or 'I am on the autistic spectrum' as under the category of reasonable alternative explanation'.

---

Right. So testimony alone is at best unsafe on which to draw a conclusion.

I've always maintained, that I think a single point to evidence is questionable (especially with physical evidence which is usually indirect evidence).

If you are reasoning, that if evidence cannot stand alone, then it is unsafe to draw a conclusion from, I don't think that your conclusion follows from the reasoning.

There are tens of thousands of eyewitness testimonials that the sun behaved strangely over Portugal one day. That's a lot of points of evidence. Do you accept that testimony? If you reject it, does the Catholic nature and implications of the testimony have anything to do with your assessment?