To build on what Astonished is saying: In a court of law, testimony can be regarded as evidence. However, as a point of logic, testimony is always a claim. Evidence regarding the testimony is what supports or undermines the claim being true.
When I say 'I saw a guy in a ski mask with an X tattoo on his left bicep mug that guy over there', it makes just as much sense to say 'I claim that I saw a guy in a ski mask with an X tattoo on his left bicep mug that guy over there'. Whether you should believe my claim/testimony is a matter of additional evidence and cross examination. And Bayesian probability plays a very strong role in how plausible my claim is.
When I say 'I saw a guy in a ski mask with an X tattoo on his left bicep mug that guy over there', it makes just as much sense to say 'I claim that I saw a guy in a ski mask with an X tattoo on his left bicep mug that guy over there'. Whether you should believe my claim/testimony is a matter of additional evidence and cross examination. And Bayesian probability plays a very strong role in how plausible my claim is.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
