Not really. "Someone says they conducted an experiment in a certain way and the data they gathered was as follows:" is still a form of "someone says You're trusting that they aren't lying about their data (and they often are).
Actually, it really depends on: - who says it - is the statement within their field of expertise - do they have known or likely personal incentives - does the topic carry significant political, religious or ideological implications - is the topic politicized - is the field itself heavily ideological or activism oriented, hard science or somewhere in the middle - is the statement consistent with statements from most other trusted experts
hmmm. So citations in scientific papers are really disses? Interesting!
It's important, because all of our evidence flows through subjective interpretation and a human reporting mechanism. Even if a computer mainlines some numbers to a data store, there's a subjective force: why did the experimenter choose to focus on those measurements?
I'm not contending the point (I'm in slight agreement with you, I believe). I'm only trying to point out that people are often talking past each other, because each person in that two-way conversation are often using different meanings of the word "evidence".
There is too much nuance to call either end of the spectrum "wrong for the meaning of 'evidence'".
You're correct, evidence exists on a spectrum from "highly implausible" to "highly plausible".
> People like to believe that "someone says" isn't evidence, which is wildly disconnected from how human society works.
Human society is multi-faceted.
In the sciences, "someone says" is the lowest form of evidence there is. It is so close to "no evidence" that we simply disregard it without further thought.
In the legal system, "someone says" is the highest form of evidence there is - witness testimony can, and routinely does, trump any other evidence.
These are the two extremes. Other human societal systems use the word "evidence" to mean anything in between these two extremes.
You are conflating the science's usage of the word "evidence" with the legal usage of the word "evidence".