> I have trouble considering someone saying that something happened, as "evidence" if there is no other relevant information.
Witness testimony is generally considered an important form of evidence. Obviously, whether there is corroborating (or, OTOH, conflicting) evidence effects the conclusions that one draws, but that's true of any instance of evidence, not just statements.
> If I stand up in the office and claim that I saw personA murder someone, does that suddenly constitute non-zero evidence that personA is a murderer?
Yes, although standing on its own it would be extremely weak evidence.
> If I write a program to randomly generate claims and post them to my Twitter account, is each tweet a non-zero amount of evidence?
No, because that's not an person making a claim of facts about which they assert direct knowledge. Its kind of irrelevant to the present circumstance, given that no one has challenged the authenticity of the source of Horvath's (or of the other participant's) claims here.
Witness testimony is generally considered an important form of evidence. Obviously, whether there is corroborating (or, OTOH, conflicting) evidence effects the conclusions that one draws, but that's true of any instance of evidence, not just statements.
> If I stand up in the office and claim that I saw personA murder someone, does that suddenly constitute non-zero evidence that personA is a murderer?
Yes, although standing on its own it would be extremely weak evidence.
> If I write a program to randomly generate claims and post them to my Twitter account, is each tweet a non-zero amount of evidence?
No, because that's not an person making a claim of facts about which they assert direct knowledge. Its kind of irrelevant to the present circumstance, given that no one has challenged the authenticity of the source of Horvath's (or of the other participant's) claims here.