(October 7, 2016 at 3:49 am)robvalue Wrote: I noticed this key phrase RR:
You'd accept anecdotes which go against your positions "if you don't have reason to doubt them".
Therein lies the problem. I'm not suggesting it's just you with this problem, it is perfectly natural to be more suspicious and critical of evidence contrary to held beliefs. I do it too, I have to actively police against it. The fact that they are just anecdotes is reason to doubt them, if it's something extremely unusual. That is my position. Not reason to totally ignore them, but enough for reasonable doubt. Enough, quite possibly, to investigate further. Especially if you're going to base any sort of important decisions on the result, as I covered in my scepticism video.
But I would wager you would pretty much always find a reason to doubt such anecdotes, if they demonstrated something that would nullify your religious position. Would you ever honestly abandon your religious views based on a big pile of anecdotes? It's a serious question. Imagine there are 1,000 accounts all corroborating that God is in fact Allah. Or God turned up and destroyed himself. Or God announced he is evil. Would you ever believe any of those things just based on verbal/written accounts? My guess is that the first reason to doubt them would be, "Why are they saying this? Do they have an ulterior motive?". And then, "Are they mistaken, or projecting their previous beliefs, and fell foul of manipulation or mass hysteria?" Or, "That can't be true." And of course, "Are these even really 1,000 different people?" To make the point, if I handed you 1,000 accounts about something, all apparently written by different people, would you ever believe it? Or would you always assume I'm winding you up?
Other forms of evidence are going to be the same.... If I have reason to doubt the evidence, then I need to resolve those reasons. Arguing from incredulity is not a valid reason however. Also, it is not always black and white, sometimes I may not be able to resolve all doubt and sometimes or I may just need to hold something in tension. There is a reason, that court rooms instruct people to judge based beyond reasonable doubt, and not certain doubt.
A difference which I nuanced to, earlier, was a difference in what you mean by testable. I got the feeling, that you mean only scientific repeatable tests. This would exclude history, many of the historical sciences, and a number of other things from evidence and what we can know. If that is the case, then I disagree. Yes, if it is repeatable, and testable in this manner, then that is great. I can see it for my self, and not have to trust others. In matters of history however, this is also indirect evidence which requires interpretation. I can't even have evidence that I was born using this criteria. And also many of the problems of perception that people bring up in regards to witness testimony still apply.
As to your question about opposing evidence. Yes, I cannot in intellectual honesty all of the sudden say, that this is not evidence now, because it doesn't agree with my prior beliefs. It cannot be evidence and not evidence, under similar circumstances and in the same way. Again, it is a little different if you have two different lines of evidence which oppose each other. They cannot both be true. And even within testimony, there can be things which make a testimony stronger or weaker. However I am after truth, so if the evidence point to something being more likely, then I will abandon by beliefs (I have done so a number of times in the past).
Quote:Thank you for your replies, you've been reasonable with me in this thread and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to inspire thought. If your answer is that yes, you really would abandon your beliefs based on the same level of anecdotal evidence which you think supports them, then fair enough. I will take you at your word.
You as well.... I like a good discussion, even if we can't come to an agreement.
I do know, that I have issues when someone is giving me the run around, or not discussing or listening. I tend to respond in kind; I know it's something that while I have improved greatly, still need to work on.
