Wrong mathematically, at least if you care to define A as evidence of B to be the same as P(B|A) > P(B|not A), and intuitively if you think about fairies and other things. But sure, it's right if you instead think of evidence as being the same thing as proof, or an inequality as expressing an insurmountable magnitude. As a way to guard against hubris I can understand the repetition.
There's probably a mathematically rigorous version of the proverb along the lines of "low-confidence observations from a limited number of data points are not always sufficient to update other actors with priors different from yours sufficiently far towards your position for the optimal status-seeking strategy to be for you to give an expression of high confidence", but it wouldn't roll off the tongue quite so well.
The person you're replying to is not using the same meaning of "evidence" as you are. You're meaning it in the strict sense of "holding all things equal, increases probability estimate of perfect bayesian reasoner" while they're using "given actual sociological conditions amongst the advanced monkeys and the eay they interpret words and labels, this should not be given the label Evidence".
Wrong mathematically, at least if you care to define A as evidence of B to be the same as P(B|A) > P(B|not A), and intuitively if you think about fairies and other things. But sure, it's right if you instead think of evidence as being the same thing as proof, or an inequality as expressing an insurmountable magnitude. As a way to guard against hubris I can understand the repetition.