Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Here's this whole thread: you keep talking about communication, or about evidence, and calling it "testimony."  It's not, and nobody uses that word about those things except you.  And the reason you do it is obvious: if I say your workplace communication is "testimony," then you will say, "See?  We use testimony all the time, and it's a perfectly natural and important way to collect information about reality. . . therefore please consider my testimony about Jeebus."  But people here know how words work, and it's pretty obvious how you are going about trying to set up an equivocation on the term.

Here's the difference, and then we're done methinks.
-Testimony uses the ideas of people to hold up "facts."
-Evidence uses facts to hold up (or demolish) the ideas held by people.

The former is weak, as people have all kinds of shitty ideas.  The latter is strong, as sufficient evidence will reveal its truth, whether an observer is critical or not.

It's pretty obvious to me, that people cannot discuss this, without making assumptions about where they think it is headed and what I'm going to do. It appears a way to divert away from discussing rationally.  

Testimony comes from the Latin word "testis" (root) and "testimonium"(1).  Meaning "witness" or "witness thereof" respectively. That is knowledge that comes as a result of the witness and transmission of another.    This is all I'm discussing in this regard; and to the dismissal of knowledge simply because it comes from testimony.  I think that this is ridiculous as an argument, especially as it is easy to show that it is not held consistently.  For instance, you want me to accept your testimony, or the testimony of some expert, but then use "it's testimony" as the reason to dismiss another claim.  I think this requires more, and that as a reason for dismissal is insufficient.  

Evidence is "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"(2)   In your comparison I think that you are speaking of something other than what I am for testimony (perhaps you can clarify).  Testimony would be evidence, acquired in a specific manner.  Also your "difference" between testimony and evidence seems somewhat circular. The only thing that makes since to me is that you are trying to say that testimony equals conclusion, where as evidence equals reason.  I would disagree, as the testimony is about witness, not the conclusion.