Testimony is Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

You missed my point.  The event is not the evidence. The event is the occurrence. If you're going to engage in discussion, it pays to use words in accordance with their definitions.

As for your second question, I've already mentioned in this thread that I think testimony may be evidence in some situations. If a person comes to a conclusion in the absence of evidence -- such as you or NS with regards to your faith -- that's your business. If you want to convince me of something, bring me evidence.

Roadrunner79 and I are in fact paying very close attention to definitions. The word evidence has two connotations: (1) that which is evident, i.e. basic facts and observations; and (2) that which given warrant to an opinion. We claim nothing more than the notion that personal testimony satisfies the definition as (1) and that a sufficient quantity of quality testimony can give warrant satisfies the definition as (2).

We are also saying that the distinction between (1) and (2) must be mutually understood before there can be a meaningful debate about any specific opinion

How do you determine that the quality of the testimony is sufficient?

---

I do think that much of this  is mostly rhetoric, so that they can avoid evidence that is unpalatable to them without thinking.  Hence the constant shifting.  However try dismissing what they want to present as just testimony and no evidence, and see how quickly the name calling starts again.

Both appeal to motivation and poisoning the well are fallacious.