Anecdotal Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

Are you saying that testimony is limited to a courtroom?

Um, No. Where did you get that from what I said?

The definition says that it is especially used in a court, but not that it's use is limited to that.   The root simply means "a witness"

Again...okay. I fail to see how that particular semantic is relevant here...? As I said before, "scientific testimony" as given in a court room (or a karaoke bar, if that appeases you) is NOT the same thing as trying to equate a peer-reviewed research study to "testimony", simply because you didn't personally observe the scientists perform their research. THAT is a false equivalency, as has been pointed out to you several times by several people. It was also pointed out to you in The Real Religion thread. It was a fallacy then, and it's still a fallacy now.

Any good scientist proffering "scientific testimony" on the stand or anywhere else, should have the full weight of robust, repeatable, verifiable evidence behind him in support of the very thing he is testifying to. That's the whole point, you know. Not so much for someone testifying to a supernatural claim though, huh?

It appears to me, that you are venturing into scientism.... do you think that science is the only way of gaining knowledge?  Or that if science doesn't explain something; that it didn't happen?

That really wasn't the purpose of this thread though, was it? Not as stated by you, at least. If you'd like to discuss epistemology, maybe start a new thread for that specific subject. My understanding was that you wanted to discuss the usefulness and/or credibility of testimony as it applies to determining the likelihood of any particular claim being true. Yes...?

This seems irrational to me.  Also I think that you are making a lot of assumptions, and reading into in the "you seem to want to say" statement.  We haven't gotten to rejecting anything yet, except for I think that rejecting by begging the question is bad.  I have said, a number of times, that accepting testimony as evidence, doesn't mean that you do not question things.   I am guessing, that those who use "known to be possible" of a criteria, do not just hand over their information to that Prince in the Middle East, that wants to send them money (because it is possible)

Okay, RR. This could go on for an eternity if you don't fess up to where you want this thread to go. Yes, testimony can be appropriately used as supporting evidence under certain circumstances. We've all agreed to that point at least once here. The question is, where are you going to go from there, and why? If you refuse to take a positive position or offer a positive argument for the damn subject that you wanted to discuss, then frankly I'm done.

Do you think atheists are irrational for dismissing supernatural bible claims? Do you think I'm being irrational for NOT accepting the claim that a dead guy came back to life after three days, solely on the basis of stories from a 2,000 year old book? Just say so, man.

Then, once you've told us what you really think, you may begin to build your positive case for why we should accept that particular claim as likely to be true. Testimony and all.

Stop making me go 'round and 'round on the semantics carousel, or I'm just gonna jump off and be done with you.