Anecdotal Evidence

[bennyboy]

Ok.... I don't agree, that it is only media and such though.   Science has it's dogma and cultural bias's too.   And sometimes they can be difficult to surmount.   Not everything is black and white and certainty levels vary.

Fair enough. There's science, the philosophical approach to learning about the world we live in, and then there's the scientific institution-- Universities, ambitious researchers trying to demonstrate their theories, etc. Even Einstein resisted new information and interpretations because they just didn't fit in with how he viewed the universe.

But when truly bad science hits popularity, it's always the media. The cases I mentioned were individual studies, and not very good ones, that got reprinted by media and entered the mainstream culture. MSG, for example, is perfectly innocuous so far as we know, but some people will refuse to eat Chinese food because they think it will give them Alzheimer's or something.

As for Nature, I don't know it, but I would certainly agree that repeatability is a problem is some areas.  You cannot, for example, repeat the smell that original diggers reported upon opening King Tut's tomb or whatever, and must take verbal reports at face value.


[quote]I think that example is a little simple (although not all science is repeatable; ie investigative sciences)  And part of the problem is pressure to get published.   It's also difficult to get money to redo existing and well liked research.   For your Reference here are the articles I was referring to.  
http://www.nature.com/news/reality-check...ty-1.19961
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scienti...ty-1.19970

Fair enough. Scientists themselves are very open to scrutiny of the process, and they talk about stuff like this at conventions all the time. I can also think of some scientific endeavors that are NOT repeatable-- for example, data collected when a satellite is smashed into a passing comet.

But when they talk about repeatability, or visibility, or whatever the standard, everyone is really talking about a very basic principle-- I need to have some way to verify that what you say is true. I need some information that I trust well enough to go through the effort of reorganizing my world view.

[robvalue]

Falsifiable. It's the key word.

Any scientific theory can be retested, and found to be false; if it is indeed false.

No amount of staring at a piece of paper or someone's face can ever confirm or deny the truth of an anecdote. And even if it is "true", it still only tells you what the person thinks happened. It's gone through their filter. With science, you can retest the actual subject matter. So you're not only taking the word of the guy who found it out, but everyone else who subsequently retests it. And there's a lot of incentive to debunk things. Science doesn't carve things in stone when they are first printed. If they are wrong, they'll get found out eventually. Unlike anecdotes. There may be corner cases, but this is generally how it works.

Seriously, science and anecdotes are not in the same league. Science isn't perfect, but it's the best tools for learning about reality; virtually by definition. (Some people really don't seem to even understand what science is in the first place, not saying anyone in particular.)

Everyone assumes this is about religious stuff because of the lack of any other real examples to demonstrate whatever issue is supposed to be occurring here. No one cares what any random person makes of an anecdote. Believe anything you want. You don't have to justify it. I guess the problem could be feeling uncomfortable and wanting to justify it.

[RoadRunner79]

I would agree, that falsifiable is important.
Although I would disagree, that just because something is non-repeatable that it is not falsifiable.

Even on science, I look for corroboration on claims. I don't however demand, that I need to seen the moon landing for myself; in order to believe it.

[robvalue]

If you can't repeat something, you can only falsify it in theory (in the abstract) and not in practice.

Right, you look for corroboration. So anecdotes are only an indicator. I don't know what more you want them to be. No one is dismissing them entirely. They can be used as a starting point for further investigation. But if there is nothing more to investigate, then it's tough noogies really. You either believe it, or you don't, and that's up to each individual. And again, no one is trying to tell people not to believe stuff. We could question the consistency of your methods, but we couldn't prevent you believing things even if we wanted to.

[RoadRunner79]

If you can't repeat something, you can only falsify it in theory (in the abstract) and not in practice.

Can you please clarify what you mean by the distinction between abstract and practice.   For instance, in the studies, concerning witness identification, and memory, that are cited; would you agree, that they are dependent upon witness testimony being falsifiable in a meaningful way?

Right, you look for corroboration. So anecdotes are only an indicator. I don't know what more you want them to be. No one is dismissing them entirely. They can be used as a starting point for further investigation. But if there is nothing more to investigate, then it's tough noogies really. You either believe it, or you don't, and that's up to each individual. And again, no one is trying to tell people not to believe stuff. We could question the consistency of your methods, but we couldn't prevent you believing things even if we wanted to.

I look for corroboration often in regards to physical evidence as well.   Does your same conclusion follow?  
I am all about testing the consistency of methods... that is largely what this thread is about.  Now I would agree, that in many categories of science, simple observation is not enough.   And with that, I would agree with your comments above.   This is because of the nature of the claim, and it is not really pertaining to what has happened, but what will happen in the future.   If you are saying that testimony is not science, then I agree.   But I think that you need to clarify exactly what you are saying by this.

[robvalue]

If you can't repeat something, you can only falsify it in theory (in the abstract) and not in practice.

Can you please clarify what you mean by the distinction between abstract and practice.   For instance, in the studies, concerning witness identification, and memory, that are cited; would you agree, that they are dependent upon witness testimony being falsifiable in a meaningful way?

What I mean is that you can't run a test to find out whether it is false. You can only deduce it from other evidence, or perhaps using logic. So you haven't directly demonstrated it, you've used an abstract process. This is different to a theory about reality, which can be tested directly, and shown to be false in practice.

It depends on the testimony. If it is specific enough, then you're right, it may well be possible to mount enough evidence to show that the events did not happen as described beyond reasonable doubt. This certainly doesn't apply to all testimony, and I'd agree that ones that can in some way be falsified are much more useful.

But a theory about reality can be falsified by anyone who understands it and has the correct equipment. Falsifying testimony requires access to very specific information. So assuming a theory is probably true is much more reasonable than assuming testimony is probably true.

Right, you look for corroboration. So anecdotes are only an indicator. I don't know what more you want them to be. No one is dismissing them entirely. They can be used as a starting point for further investigation. But if there is nothing more to investigate, then it's tough noogies really. You either believe it, or you don't, and that's up to each individual. And again, no one is trying to tell people not to believe stuff. We could question the consistency of your methods, but we couldn't prevent you believing things even if we wanted to.

I look for corroboration often in regards to physical evidence as well.   Does your same conclusion follow?  

I don't understand what this means. I try and collect as much evidence as I can, and draw the most reasonable conclusion from it. So yes, I look for as much corroboration as possible, no matter what I've already got. It's a matter of feeling convinced. Usually I try to reach a standard where I could convince some other neutral person, unless it's a matter of little concern or importance.

I am all about testing the consistency of methods... that is largely what this thread is about.  Now I would agree, that in many categories of science, simple observation is not enough.   And with that, I would agree with your comments above.   This is because of the nature of the claim, and it is not really pertaining to what has happened, but what will happen in the future.   If you are saying that testimony is not science, then I agree.   But I think that you need to clarify exactly what you are saying by this.

I don't understand what you're asking me here either. You're asking what I'm saying by "testimony isn't science"?

There's also a difference between observation and testimony. If I observe something, that's direct evidence, to me. (Obviously, my memory isn't perfect and so I look for as much external verification as possible too.) If I read testimony, it is not direct evidence. I have no way of knowing whether the events happened as described.

[RoadRunner79]

Can you please clarify what you mean by the distinction between abstract and practice.   For instance, in the studies, concerning witness identification, and memory, that are cited; would you agree, that they are dependent upon witness testimony being falsifiable in a meaningful way?

What I mean is that you can't run a test to find out whether it is false. You can only deduce it from other evidence, or perhaps using logic. So you haven't directly demonstrated it, you've used an abstract process. This is different to a theory about reality, which can be tested directly, and shown to be false in practice.

It depends on the testimony. If it is specific enough, then you're right, it may well be possible to mount enough evidence to show that the events did not happen as described beyond reasonable doubt. This certainly doesn't apply to all testimony, and I'd agree that ones that can in some way be falsified are much more useful.

But a theory about reality can be falsified by anyone who understands it and has the correct equipment. Falsifying testimony requires access to very specific information. So assuming a theory is probably true is much more reasonable than assuming testimony is probably true.

Ok... so you seem to be making a  distinction, between a claim of do this, and this will happen, to one of an inductive nature the conclusion most likely follows the premises.   That is the nature of history, and a good many investigative sciences.  How are you connecting this to the discussion, and how does it effect testimony?  You mention that to falsify a claim about a physical process, that you need specific skills and or equipment.  And to falsify testimony, that you need specific information.   I would agree, that not all testimony is falsifiable (and this should be taken into consideration).  My question is, if myself (lacking the specific skills and equipment) can count the testimony of a number of independent scientist as to what they report?   This would seem to be relying on others for that specific information that I personally lack.  

We can also take a hyper-skeptical attitude where next to nothing is falsifiable, but I don't think this is useful (and often inconsistent).

I look for corroboration often in regards to physical evidence as well.   Does your same conclusion follow?  

I don't understand what this means. I try and collect as much evidence as I can, and draw the most reasonable conclusion from it. So yes, I look for as much corroboration as possible, no matter what I've already got. It's a matter of feeling convinced. Usually I try to reach a standard where I could convince some other neutral person, unless it's a matter of little concern or importance.I

Yes, I don't think that you can really have overkill when it comes to evidence (although I may be skeptical, when the evidence is too neat and too perfect).  But you seemed to be making a point about needing corroboration.   I was pointing out, that indirect evidence often only gives a part of the picture, and needs other evidence as well.  I don't understand what you are saying,  if the evidence cannot stand alone, that it is not evidence?

I am all about testing the consistency of methods... that is largely what this thread is about.  Now I would agree, that in many categories of science, simple observation is not enough.   And with that, I would agree with your comments above.   This is because of the nature of the claim, and it is not really pertaining to what has happened, but what will happen in the future.   If you are saying that testimony is not science, then I agree.   But I think that you need to clarify exactly what you are saying by this.

I don't understand what you're asking me here either. You're asking what I'm saying by "testimony isn't science"?

There's also a difference between observation and testimony. If I observe something, that's direct evidence, to me. (Obviously, my memory isn't perfect and so I look for as much external verification as possible too.) If I read testimony, it is not direct evidence. I have no way of knowing whether the events happened as described.

Well you seem to be saying that testimony is not science..... what does that mean in regards to the discussion?  
Yet again, you seem to be saying that if you do not see it for yourself, that it is not evidence, or that it is only evidence to the one who has seen.   Do you not know anything, which you have not personally seen? (it must be a small world for you).

[bennyboy]

Well you seem to be saying that testimony is not science..... what does that mean in regards to the discussion?  
Yet again, you seem to be saying that if you do not see it for yourself, that it is not evidence, or that it is only evidence to the one who has seen.   Do you not know anything, which you have not personally seen? (it must be a small world for you).

People are more likely to accept "testimony" about categories for which they already have experience, to have curiosity or suspicion about those categories for which they do not already have experience, and deep suspicion or disbelief for those which contradict what they already know, not only in detail but on a more fundamental level.

For example, if someone says they saw Johnny and he's wearing a nose ring these days, I'm likely to take that at face value. I might be surprised that Johnny would do such a thing, but I know people sometimes change and do stuff like that.

If someone says Johnny walked on water and gave a blind man his vision, I'm unlikely to take that at face value.

To you, it's the same process: somebody said something, and their "testimony" is evidence of truth. But the farther claims range from what I believe to be true, the more likely I am to resist the claim.

In the case of science, I've done relatively few investigations. However, of the few I've done with my own hands, they have ALWAYS turned out as expected. I therefore believe if I follow a course of science, I will learn a lot about the world, and my trust comes from the fact that I can either reproduce, or have a sensible explanation about why I can't reproduce results.

In the case of religion, my own inquiries have produced little results. Instead of clarifying their position, those religious spiritualists whom I've met attempt to cloud or mystify the subject. They cannot accurately describe how they made their own inquiries, or how I can make mine to produce a useful result. Their testimony does not provide me with any benefit to my world view-- nothing is well-explained, answers to those questions I care about are not really given. I'm not willing to sit in a monastery for 20 years on a promise that eventually I will come into communion with God.

[robvalue]

Yes, testimony is not firm evidence. However, in a lot of cases, I'll accept it. Not all claims are equal. Some are mundane and/or unimportant. For those, I'll accept a minimal level of evidence. As they get more unusual or important, I'll require more evidence.

I've said this many times, but scientific theories represent something anyone can falsify, without requiring any specific information. So I'm not just believing the people who developed the theory, I'm aware of the fact that no one has falsified it. And there will always be people desperately trying to falsify theories. If it's surviving worldwide scrutiny, then that gives me a massive level of confidence. The only other scenario is that people who falsify it, anywhere in the world, are being silenced before they can get their stuff out on the internet. If I don't believe these theories, I wouldn't be able to believe anything. They are more reliable, in my opinion, than what I see with my own eyes, because of the level of scrutiny they have gone through. Of course, I think them through and see if they make sense to me. And generally they do, if I can understand them. They align with reality.

Also, interesting though they are, most scientific theories don't impact my life in any way. If I believe them but they turn out to be wrong, I shrug my shoulders. I don't base my (moral) actions on them. So I don't need to go and personally verify every single one, because I don't care enough. People are doing that for me, all over the world. I have other stuff to do.

So no, science is not just the testimony of a bunch of people. Look at everything around you, developed by science. If you think all that is based on nothing more than the say-so of a few people, I don't know what I can tell you. Science is what works, and it does. Why you want to try and equate science with testimony, I don't know. I can only think you don't know much about how science really works. That's an observation, not an insult.

What point you're even trying to make, I still don't know.

[RoadRunner79]

Well you seem to be saying that testimony is not science..... what does that mean in regards to the discussion?  
Yet again, you seem to be saying that if you do not see it for yourself, that it is not evidence, or that it is only evidence to the one who has seen.   Do you not know anything, which you have not personally seen? (it must be a small world for you).

People are more likely to accept "testimony" about categories for which they already have experience, to have curiosity or suspicion about those categories for which they do not already have experience, and deep suspicion or disbelief for those which contradict what they already know, not only in detail but on a more fundamental level.

For example, if someone says they saw Johnny and he's wearing a nose ring these days, I'm likely to take that at face value.  I might be surprised that Johnny would do such a thing, but I know people sometimes change and do stuff like that.

If someone says Johnny walked on water and gave a blind man his vision, I'm unlikely to take that at face value.  

I would agree that we may be willing to make more assumptions or concessions, for a number of reasons.  However, I don't think that others are required or expected to make the same allowances, for lack of reasonable evidence. I believe that what is reasonable in one case, is reasonable in a similar case.  I am also open to new ideas, and believe that we should look at the evidence.  Perhaps it is just me, but I think that sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring evidence that doesn't conform to your a priori beliefs is a good epistemology.

To you, it's the same process: somebody said something, and their "testimony" is evidence of truth.  But the farther claims range from what I believe to be true, the more likely I am to resist the claim.

I do think that is natural, and it is difficult to accept things which conflict with our worldview (although; while it may be natural, I don't think it is always beneficial, and we should follow the evidence).  

In the case of science, I've done relatively few investigations.  However, of the few I've done with my own hands, they have ALWAYS turned out as expected.  I therefore believe if I follow a course of science, I will learn a lot about the world, and my trust comes from the fact that I can either reproduce, or have a sensible explanation about why I can't reproduce results.

Well your results seem to be better than the results of the poll of Scientists who responded  in the Journal Nature I cited. But it probably depends on what you are doing.  And I do think that the method of science has produced a number of great things.  

In the case of religion, my own inquiries have produced little results.  Instead of clarifying their position, those religious spiritualists whom I've met attempt to cloud or mystify the subject.  They cannot accurately describe how they made their own inquiries, or how I can make mine to produce a useful result.  Their testimony does not provide me with any benefit to my world view-- nothing is well-explained, answers to those questions I care about are not really given.  I'm not willing to sit in a monastery for 20 years on a promise that eventually I will come into communion with God.

My experience differs, and I find that if I take a presuppositional approach, that a large number of things are better explained through theism.   However I fail to see, what this has to do with testimony.   In fact this seems to be one of a number of things, which you offer through testimony in this post, which you seem to be giving as justification or reason for your beliefs (evidence).  I find this somewhat self defeating.