Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

In case I am one of the brick walls, I want to point out that your first sentence "that testimony is perfectly acceptable as evidence" is simply true by definition. Your second sentence is just a matter of opinion since 1) you do not have a logical defeater for and 2) there are good reasons for someone to hold the opposing view that testimony can be sufficient on it's own. Notice I did not say the opposing view is that testimony is sufficient--because no one really holds that position.

Well, I've supplied evidence for my stance. Perhaps you could do the same? Not a logical argument as you so love to do, but actual evidence.

I don't need to. The evidence is the evidence. It's the conclusions you draw from the evidence that is in question. Your position seems to be:

1. Witness testimony is unreliable for some % of cases
2. We don't know when a mistake will be made
3. Therefore witness testimony cannot be relied upon by itself

But the conclusion does not necessarily (in every case...therefore must) follow from the premises which is evident when we look at the opposing view:

1. Witness testimony is unreliable for some % of cases
2. We don't know when a mistake will be made 
3' Therefore care must be given when relying solely on witness testimony 

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises either. So we are left with a matter of opinion as to which one is correct. So, in spite of your sometimes less than charitable discourse with RR, you are arguing for your opinion, not the evidence, not logical conclusions, and certainly not undermining the opposing view's opinion.

I think the 3' is more reasoned and more accurately reflects reality--but that is only my opinion (that just so happens to be shared by every legal system in the world).