(August 21, 2017 at 11:50 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(August 21, 2017 at 11:16 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.
*sigh*
Fine. Can we agree that testimony is not equally sufficient? for all types of claims? How does that sit with you?
[/quote]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.