(November 8, 2015 at 11:40 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm sorry, I let this thread become neglected by myself some .  I was somewhat waiting to see if some more would address the principles in the OP, rather than jump to conclusions about the evidence. (which I didn't talk about)   I think that it's interesting, that in a discussion about fair and cosnsitant standards of evidence, there where so many who only focused on the outcome, and what may need to be considered.   A number of others jumped to assumptions about lowering evidence, and what is evidence, which where not mentioned by myself at all.

There was a few post which I felt where good, in regards to the subject.   One of which I replied, stated that I misunderstand the quote that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  I admit, that I am not really aware of the original context, so this is entirely possible, and I was mostly referring to the manner I have seen it used (and I believe has largely been reflected here in this thread).  The way this poster presented it, I think we where for the most part in agreement, and that extraordinary evidence only means sufficient evidence, and that it is the audience who can decide if the claim is extraordinary and not allow the assumptions of the one making the claim.   

Others have alluded, that non-extraordinary claims, already have already been demonstrated, and therefore require less evidence.  I agree with this to an extent, but also think we need to realize what assumptions are being made, and that others may question those assumptions.  In some instances, we may make assumptions, but really the evidence doesn't speak any stronger to one claim over the other.

Everything is revisited at certain points as ideas are altered and added to. However the hypothesis "there is a god" has the downside of not being testable, or at least has now been moved out side of testability when all the testable tenets of god came back with better explanations.

Can you imagine what "scientific knowledge" would look like if a group of people claiming something happened was considered enough evidence on its own?

After 5 minutes?

There has to be ways to separate the truth from the bullshit, and that is the scientific method. It's the only method that has consistently and reliably proven to work. If something just happens to be true but has insufficient evidence, that's just too bad. It's far preferable to accepting absolutely everything, so that almost all "knowledge" is likely to be wrong.

If something never occurs again and has no measurable impact ever, then it can be safely ignored as irrelevant even if it did happen in the past.

If someone wants to believe something based on extremely weak evidence, that's up to them. Unless it's causing harm, it's none of my business.

(November 9, 2015 at 2:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: Can you imagine what "scientific knowledge" would look like if a group of people claiming something happened was considered enough evidence on its own?

After 5 minutes?

There has to be ways to separate the truth from the bullshit, and that is the scientific method. It's the only method that has consistently and reliably proven to work. If something just happens to be true but has insufficient evidence, that's just too bad. It's far preferable to accepting absolutely everything, so that almost all "knowledge" is likely to be wrong.

If something never occurs again and has no measurable impact ever, then it can be safely ignored as irrelevant even if it did happen in the past.

If someone wants to believe something based on extremely weak evidence, that's up to them. Unless it's causing harm, it's none of my business.

I do plan on starting another post to discuss the value of witness testimony and observance.  Here I only wished to discuss the principle of EC-EE, and it's merit.   Interestingly enough most of the arguments pro...where anecdotal.

I think you're confusing an example with an anecdote.

(November 9, 2015 at 4:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: I think you're confusing an example with an anecdote.

What is the difference?

An example is an imaginary (or sometimes real) scenario which is used to illustrate a general principle or a point.

An anecdote is the telling of a story which the teller hopes will be believed as fact just on their say so.

(November 9, 2015 at 4:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 4:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: I think you're confusing an example with an anecdote.

What is the difference?

An example can be (and in this thread have been) hypothetical.

An anecdote is something claimed to have actually happened.

(November 9, 2015 at 5:20 pm)robvalue Wrote: An example is an imaginary (or sometimes real) scenario which is used to illustrate a general principle or a point.

An anecdote is the telling of a story which the teller hopes will be believed as fact just on their say so.

If you say so!

(November 9, 2015 at 5:31 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 5:20 pm)robvalue Wrote: An example is an imaginary (or sometimes real) scenario which is used to illustrate a general principle or a point.

An anecdote is the telling of a story which the teller hopes will be believed as fact just on their say so.

If you say so!

You could always, you know, look the terms up.

When considering any kind of anecdote, it's not simply a matter of determining if they are telling the truth. They may be telling what they think is the truth, but that doesn't stop them being mistaken. If someone tells me they "saw a ghost", I don't think to myself that they are lying to me. I think, given no further evidence to look at, that the probability they are mistaken is virtually 100%. People are mistaken all the time, it's a very simple explanation. The chances of them actually having experienced and correctly identified some phenomenon unknown to science is miniscule by comparison.

They probably did see something. But their instant conclusion that it was a ghost is not reliable. Such a thing has never been shown to exist, and crucially, we have nothing to compare a potential ghost to besides fiction and other anecdotes for them to draw such a conclusion. Upon questioning, the response is almost always the argument from ignorance fallacy: "What else could it have been?"

Of course, you can't discount the possibility that someone really did see something that actually was "a ghost", whatever that may mean. But there's no need to discount the possibility. All that you need to do is consider the likelihoods. And since anecdotes provide no actual evidence to examine, it's entirely arbitrary to believe one over another when the claims are fantastical like this.