I think, that what I find peculiar, is the way the term "anecdote" is being used here (almost as if being shoe horned in). Perhaps I view evidence differently. I see different kinds of evidence having different uses or strengths. I also do not think that evidence and reason is in the domain of science alone. This may be dependent on the category of the topic one is dealing with. Strength of evidence can vary, and is really dependent on how well the evidence speaks to uncovering the truth in question.
A double blind study, with a large number of tests; I believe is very strong evidence. Yet to demand this type of evidence above all other's even within science; is incorrect. I don't see evolution or other historical studies in science doing double blind tests. This is because double blind tests speaks to what is likely to occur in the future, and doesn't describe the past. Similarly; the results of such tests do not preclude an anomaly, or speak to the truthfulness or falsity of what happened previously. It is a poor method of judgement in this manner.
What you guy's are calling "anecdotes" in legal terms, they call direct evidence. It is called direct, because it speaks directly to what has occurred. Most often the physical or forensic evidence is circumstantial. It requires and inductive leap to connect the evidence to the case being made. This is not to say, that direct evidence, is better or more preferred over circumstantial evidence. It all depends on what the individual piece of evidence, can tell us, and overall, how all the evidence together works to paint a picture of what occurred.
In mentioning "testimony of evidence", all I meant, was someone else telling us, what they found or observed. I may have to rely on others, to tell me, about their scientific results (and reporting all the information accurately), the same as someone telling me, what they observed.
Also, to the poster, who wrote an anecdote, as evidence against anecdotes. Your post was noticed and appreciated.
A double blind study, with a large number of tests; I believe is very strong evidence. Yet to demand this type of evidence above all other's even within science; is incorrect. I don't see evolution or other historical studies in science doing double blind tests. This is because double blind tests speaks to what is likely to occur in the future, and doesn't describe the past. Similarly; the results of such tests do not preclude an anomaly, or speak to the truthfulness or falsity of what happened previously. It is a poor method of judgement in this manner.
What you guy's are calling "anecdotes" in legal terms, they call direct evidence. It is called direct, because it speaks directly to what has occurred. Most often the physical or forensic evidence is circumstantial. It requires and inductive leap to connect the evidence to the case being made. This is not to say, that direct evidence, is better or more preferred over circumstantial evidence. It all depends on what the individual piece of evidence, can tell us, and overall, how all the evidence together works to paint a picture of what occurred.
In mentioning "testimony of evidence", all I meant, was someone else telling us, what they found or observed. I may have to rely on others, to tell me, about their scientific results (and reporting all the information accurately), the same as someone telling me, what they observed.
Also, to the poster, who wrote an anecdote, as evidence against anecdotes. Your post was noticed and appreciated.
