Anecdotal Evidence

[Pat Mustard]

... and historical matters, testimony is considered evidence, ...

Actually, in history testimony is considered as little better than it is considered in science. It's just that in history, sometimes, testimony is all there is to go on. But if there is anything else, e.g. documentary evidence, or archaeological evidence, that contradicts the testimony, the proper course of action is to throw out the testimony as unsupported assertion.

For example there's lots of testimony that people with only one giant foot lived in Southern Africa from the time of the Age of Navigation explorations, we do not consider that testimony to be anything other than raiméis, simply because there is no evidence that any such creature inhabited the area, and plenty of evidence that the people who did were just as they are now physiologically.