GL compelling fiction to testify, Min, lol.  That reminds me of my favorite ancillary claim regarding eyewitnesses, actually.  

"If it didn't happen the way it says in scripture, there would have been so many people who knew that and they would have called bullshit"

-Not if there weren't any "witnesses" to these "events"  to quibble over details in the first place.

Quote: "If it didn't happen the way it says in scripture, there would have been so many people who knew that and they would have called bullshit"

The same is true of the Arthurian legends.

(November 19, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'd still like to cross examine one of the 500 fucking witnesses.

If the guy knew any number bigger than that, I'm sure there would have been more witnesses.

Sooooooo many testimonies are soooooooo weak, and some are outright lies and witch-hunts.

Yes, not all testimonies are equal. Some are weaker and some are stronger than others. And some people will lie, to get what they want. It's not about the truth, but about the results or conclusion (and they will normally have some kind of justification for it). We cannot believe every claim, but then I do not think it is right, to decide before hand, and irregardless of the evidence, what is believable or not. This is circular and not beneficial to finding the truth (it's simply restating what you believed a priori).

Sometimes the evidence may be inconclusive. It either does not provide enough of a picture of what occurred, or is not collaborated enough to rationally deduce what had occurred. This can be true of both physical or forensic evidence, as well as testimony. With this, we can remain skeptical (not making a claim either for or against). Or we may believe that an opposing claim is better supported and contrary to the given testimony, in which case I think it is reasonable to deny the opposing claim.

Many aspects of life (history) are not repeatable, and even if you can repeat something similar, it does not necessarily provide evidence, that it occurred that way before. It is wrong to require scientific repeatability to test claims outside of the category of science.

Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others. I am looking at those who agree, and those who claim evidence contrary to the claim (others who can verify or falsify the claim). I look at the detail provided, and those who best explain why the believe, rather than just the conclusion. I also look for details that provide that they are knowledgeable and/or show they are capable of testifying to the observation. I do expect testimony to have reasonable differences, because of the reasons discussed. There are going to be different perspectives, and focuses; as well as some inaccuracies do to the limitations of memory talked about. But it should also verify and collaborate the general claims and events. Someone had mentioned a claim of a person being able to levitate. And yes; this is difficult to believe (I am skeptical of the claim from the start). However, if a large number of independent people, and even professional investigators all claim that they have verified and tested the claims, that it is not a trick and the person really can levitate at any place or time (eliminating prior setup). And if the claims of any doubters was weak, then I am going to believe the claim (at least tentatively). Even though it goes against my experience and believes of what is ordinary, I'm going to consider the evidence good, that this did occur. And even if it only happened once, if the witnesses are able to verify the claim to a proper degree, then I am going to tend to go with the evidence.

Here's the thing with many false claims: they are believed by stupid people. And here's the thing with people: many of them are stupid.

These two obvious statements, taken together, really should be an end to this thread.

(November 21, 2015 at 1:01 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others.

Let's cut through the bullshit. Science leaves behind a trail of method and observation, which anyone that chooses to do so can replicate. If the findings are different, science leaves open the possibility of error, always welcoming correction. You are attempting to conflate this 'testimony of others' with the non-repeatable claims of superstitious ignorant ancients.

You're simply wrong. You can either admit your error or apologize to everyone for your intentional obfuscation. The only other alternative is for us to believe you are too fucking stupid to understand the distinction. The facts are plain; the perceptive truth is up to you.

Science is not based on anecdotes. This is just complete nonsense. If you really think this, you have no idea what science is.

As I suspected from the start, you want people to take seriously extraordinary claims based on no evidence except anecdotes.

You want people to be gullible. I have no need to declare any extraordinary anecdote to be wrong. All I need to do is ask for supporting evidence. If there is none, then I don't believe it.

(November 21, 2015 at 3:55 am)robvalue Wrote: Science is not based on anecdotes. This is just complete nonsense. If you really think this, you have no idea what science is.

As they say: "The plural of anecdote is not data."

Indeed. There are plenty of very good explanations for why a group of people may report some seemingly impossible event. They are all vastly more likely than the event having actually occured as described.

Could they sometimes be true? Of course. But we need a method of determining which are true. The alternative is to believe all of them, and unless you're prepared to believe any bullshit me and my friends come up with, you're being a massive hypocrite.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, everyone has conceded that any particular anecdote might be true. But what use is that statement if you have no way of deciding which are true?

I suspect that what is really going on is RR is trying to reassure himself that believing extraordinary claims written in an ancient book is an intellectually respectable thing to do. Not even this explains why he only believes one ancient book though. The difference between a religious person and a sceptic is that the sceptic consistently applies the exact same criteria to every religion, while the religious person applies them to every religion except their own.

And as I've often said, I don't give a monkeys if the whole bible happened as written. What difference should it make to me? If people want to believe it, they needn't justify it to me or to any sceptic.