He never said philosophers don't use evidence, only that when they are using evidence they are doing science. The important question isn't what job title someone holds, otherwise we can describe Relativity as patent clerking, but how to describe what someone is doing. But since you asked...

When one compares philosophical accounts of evidence with the way the concept is often employed in non-philosophical contexts, however, a tension soon emerges. Consider first the kinds of things which non-philosophers are apt to count as evidence. For the forensics expert, evidence might consist of fingerprints on a gun, a bloodied knife, or a semen-stained dress: evidence is, paradigmatically, the kind of thing which one might place in a plastic bag and label ‘Exhibit A’...From the perspective of much ordinary thought and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing about evidence would seem to embody a particularly grotesque category mistake...the accounts of evidence that have been advanced by philosophers stand in at least some prima facie tension with much that is said and thought about evidence outside of philosophy.

The answer to most philosophical questions is "it depends what you mean by word-a and word-b". You and Kurt_blowbrain are both right and both wrong depending on what you mean by "evidence". Instead of using the Socratic method on him, which almost never works, ( evidence: how often has it worked for you? ) you should produce an actual counter-example (evidence!). This of course won't convince him, but will force both of you to discuss what you mean by word-a and word-b. This is progress! You will then be addressing the real disagreement, namely what each of you mean by word-a and word-b.