Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I'm interested to know though what the actual issue is here. Is there some practical problem you're trying to address? Why is it important to you to raise the profile of anecdotes?

The issue is in asking for evidence, and then denying any evidence a priori based on the content.  I think that this is dishonest.  Also, as I have mentioned, this use of the term anecdote is unusual and seems almost forced.  Now you can do a search, and find websites which will state anecdotes are not evidence.  This is in the context of scientific research.  And if you look at the examples in these instances, what they are addressing when they say it  is not evidence, it is not denying that the events are being being conveyed accurately.  It is addressing issues; such as cherry picking data, hasty generalization, and post hoc ergo hoc, in coming to a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence.  And I think that this is the source of this awkward use of the term found here.

You assess that I am trying to raise the profile of anecdotes.  I would suggest that you do some study in the use of testimony in historical and legal contexts.   In your unusual definition of anecdote, you included that it is un-testable.  I disagree.  It is un-repeatable; but, unless you are wanting to limit what is knowable, to only what is repeatable (which I think that most epidemiologist and philosophers would take issue's with) then I don't think the argument is very well thought out.  I do think that seeing something occur is good evidence, that it is possible, even if those with higher learning, cannot reproduce or explain it. Likewise, we can share what we know with others, and what is knowable, is not limited to our own personal experience.  I would agree, that people can make mistakes, and if I had seen something unusual, I would be the first, to ask someone else (if available) if they saw the same thing.  We do need to test a witness, and even test ourselves.   This applies to our philosophies, not just to anecdotes.

Is there any other points concerning you except for religous texts? How does this impact real life?

I'm not discussing this as something specific concerning only religious texts, but as a general principle.  It has to do with correct reasoning.   Now if I was endorsing the use of a logical fallacy as an argument, would that impact real life?  Maybe, maybe not.   People got a long just fine, before these things where considered.  People got a long for many years, before modern science as well.   But, I think that if you are going to have a thoughtful discussion using this principle, then we are open to examine that philosophy.  I would ask again, what are you basing this view on.   So far, all I remember seeing, is that people can make mistakes, and people can lie.   I agree, however I don't think that a modernist view (where everything has to be certain) or a post-modern view (where nothing can be known) is very profitable.