I'll try and address this when my brain is up to it.

I'm interested to know though what the actual issue is here. Is there some practical problem you're trying to address? Why is it important to you to raise the profile of anecdotes?

With regard to religion, personally, I don't care. If the whole bible is true, I don't care. My problems with religion have nothing to do with whether they are true or not. It really isn't of any concern to me. It's just of academic interest, and because some people seem to be bothered about it.

Is there any other points concerning you except for religous texts? How does this impact real life?

(October 8, 2016 at 4:08 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm interested to know though what the actual issue is here. Is there some practical problem you're trying to address? Why is it important to you to raise the profile of anecdotes?

The issue is in asking for evidence, and then denying any evidence a priori based on the content.  I think that this is dishonest.  Also, as I have mentioned, this use of the term anecdote is unusual and seems almost forced.  Now you can do a search, and find websites which will state anecdotes are not evidence.  This is in the context of scientific research.  And if you look at the examples in these instances, what they are addressing when they say it  is not evidence, it is not denying that the events are being being conveyed accurately.  It is addressing issues; such as cherry picking data, hasty generalization, and post hoc ergo hoc, in coming to a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence.  And I think that this is the source of this awkward use of the term found here.

You assess that I am trying to raise the profile of anecdotes.  I would suggest that you do some study in the use of testimony in historical and legal contexts.   In your unusual definition of anecdote, you included that it is un-testable.  I disagree.  It is un-repeatable; but, unless you are wanting to limit what is knowable, to only what is repeatable (which I think that most epidemiologist and philosophers would take issue's with) then I don't think the argument is very well thought out.  I do think that seeing something occur is good evidence, that it is possible, even if those with higher learning, cannot reproduce or explain it. Likewise, we can share what we know with others, and what is knowable, is not limited to our own personal experience.  I would agree, that people can make mistakes, and if I had seen something unusual, I would be the first, to ask someone else (if available) if they saw the same thing.  We do need to test a witness, and even test ourselves.   This applies to our philosophies, not just to anecdotes.

Quote:Is there any other points concerning you except for religous texts? How does this impact real life?

I'm not discussing this as something specific concerning only religious texts, but as a general principle.  It has to do with correct reasoning.   Now if I was endorsing the use of a logical fallacy as an argument, would that impact real life?  Maybe, maybe not.   People got a long just fine, before these things where considered.  People got a long for many years, before modern science as well.   But, I think that if you are going to have a thoughtful discussion using this principle, then we are open to examine that philosophy.  I would ask again, what are you basing this view on.   So far, all I remember seeing, is that people can make mistakes, and people can lie.   I agree, however I don't think that a modernist view (where everything has to be certain) or a post-modern view (where nothing can be known) is very profitable.

Can you give any specific examples of how the supposed mistreatment of anecdotes is affecting scientific research? I assume you're talking about science at large and not just discussion on forums with people producing anecdotes.

I said an anecdote is untestable because it is simply an account. I can't jump into the account and replay the event. I just have the words to go by. If the account suggests something which I can go ahead and test quite easily, then I would simply do so. And it would be the test that is the evidence, not the anecdote. I'd like to see an example of what you think is a testable anecdote. Everything in the account has gone through the filter of the story teller. I can't test their account, even if I could test the events involved. If they present it in a testable form, it's a hypothesis.

I'm not ignoring parts of your posts, I honestly find them extremely hard to respond to. I don't know where to begin. So I'm trying to focus on important points I feel can be further discussed.

(October 10, 2016 at 2:46 am)robvalue Wrote: Can you give any specific examples of how the supposed mistreatment of anecdotes is affecting scientific research? I assume you're talking about science at large and not just discussion on forums with people producing anecdotes.

I said an anecdote is untestable because it is simply an account. I can't jump into the account and replay the event. I just have the words to go by. If the account suggests something which I can go ahead and test quite easily, then I would simply do so. And it would be the test that is the evidence, not the anecdote. I'd like to see an example of what you think is a testable anecdote. Everything in the account has gone through the filter of the story teller. I can't test their account, even if I could test the events involved. If they present it in a testable form, it's a hypothesis.

I'm not ignoring parts of your posts, I honestly find them extremely hard to respond to. I don't know where to begin. So I'm trying to focus on important points I feel can be further discussed.

I'm not aware of any issue in the context of scientific research, and that is not normally where I find that it is brought up here.  I have said from the beginning, that I agree with the examples and the reasons given if you look it up (in the context of science).  A common example would be a correlation made, from anecdotes in regards to a medical claim of causation.  

Do you think, that in order for us to gain knowledge about something, that it needs to fit within the category of science?

Depends how you define knowledge. It's not a simple concept. If you're interested in the most accurate models of reality that can be found, then yes, you use the scientific method. If you're examining something for which you can no longer do any testing, you have to draw your best conclusions from the available data. You still use a scientific method as far as possible.

I have no idea what else you're suggesting, or what kind of knowledge you're talking about. I can gain informal knowledge just by observing things. If I want to confirm that what I think I know is as accurate as possible, I'll use scientific methods and independent observers to review my work.

Scientific methods are those methods which can be demonstrated to produce reliable results. So if you have some other method, either it also does this and so is science; or else it doesn't and it's probably not very useful. Trying to say something isn't science but does what science does is equivocating.

An example would be nice, please. Because all I have to go on at the moment is your beliefs about religious documents.

By the way, trying to include the qualifier "true" in regard to knowledge is redundant. We don't have access to "truth". We model reality. The only time truth appears is within abstract systems. We're trying to get close to what is true. But we can never know if we've actually achieved it or not.

One possible definition I came up with is "information that has practical application". That might not be foolproof, but I think it's a reasonable rule of thumb.

When people apparently "know" something, and haven't used a scientific method to reach the conclusion, invariably the "knowledge" is useless. So without a specific example here, I have no idea what your point is at all.

(October 10, 2016 at 8:23 am)robvalue Wrote: Depends how you define knowledge. It's not a simple concept. If you're interested in the most accurate models of reality that can be found, then yes, you use the scientific method. If you're examining something for which you can no longer do any testing, you have to draw your best conclusions from the available data. You still use a scientific method as far as possible.

I have no idea what else you're suggesting, or what kind of knowledge you're talking about. I can gain informal knowledge just by observing things. If I want to confirm that what I think I know is as accurate as possible, I'll use scientific methods and independent observers to review my work.

Scientific methods are those methods which can be demonstrated to produce reliable results. So if you have some other method, either it also does this and so is science; or else it doesn't and it's probably not very useful. Trying to say something isn't science but does what science does is equivocating.

An example would be nice, please. Because all I have to go on at the moment is your beliefs about religious documents.

You may want to clarify, when you are talking about science, what you mean.   What you are saying here, sounds very much like an old definition of science, when philosophy and theology where considered science, and most modern readers are going to have a narrower definition in mind if you are not clear. 

You had mentioned, that one can gain informal knowledge by observation.   This is my point.  Seeing something is a basic principle, there is no other reason needed, to justify belief (although interpretations may questionable).  You don't need to understand it, or to be able to repeat it.   And like other knowledge, this information can be transferred to another.   It is evidence (or a reason to believe that a proposition is valid). 

For example, from science, I am very doubtful about life on other planets. The conditions for life, appear to be highly improbable, and quite restrictive.  As well, there are a number of hurdles, in traveling to a very distant planet.  However, if a number of people are attending some outdoor event, and all give similar detailed reports of a craft coming down, and taking one of the people at the event.  A number of people who know the person who was taken also report him being missing.   Three days later he is found, and gives a detailed report of the aliens who took him.  The craft left no other physical evidence which can be found, and there are no photos or videos from the time of the event. 

The event cannot be repeated, and nothing in the story is available for study.  However at the very least, there are a number of witnesses, who pretty much agree about the craft, and then there is the testimony of the one taken.  And further those who reported the person was no where to be found for the three days.  Now it is possible, that there could be other explanations, but without further reasons; these would likely contain many more assumptions as well.  At this point given the evidence, I would think that I would need to re-evaluate my assumptions based on science.

(October 10, 2016 at 10:10 am)robvalue Wrote: By the way, trying to include the qualifier "true" in regard to knowledge is redundant. We don't have access to "truth". We model reality. The only time truth appears is within abstract systems. We're trying to get close to what is true. But we can never know if we've actually achieved it or not.

One possible definition I came up with is "information that has practical application". That might not be foolproof, but I think it's a reasonable rule of thumb.

I unsure what you are referencing here. Is this from a while back? But I would agree with your first paragraph here. People often make the same mistake with the word proof.

As to your definition, by practical do you mean "useful"? This could be highly subjective.

Quote:When people apparently "know" something, and haven't used a scientific method to reach the conclusion, invariably the "knowledge" is useless. So without a specific example here, I have no idea what your point is at all.

By what scientific methods did you come to know this?

So say we believe them a bit more... What practical difference does this make to anything? Especially if there's no evidence to work with? We... do what? I really don't get it. We haven't gained any information of any practical importance. We're already well on the look out for alien life and such, what more can we do? All I can gather from what you're saying is that we should start to question our actual methods, because what we think we know is getting contradicted by some verbal accounts. Am I right? If so, I find this is simply absurd.

I've never said that an anecdote didn't happen as described. I'm just discussing the likelihood that it did. This sounds eerily like the argument from ignorance. People report all kinds of shit all the time. How exactly do we tell the difference between ones to be taken seriously and ones that shouldn't? And what should we do with them, other than investigate further? When there is no evidence, there's nothing to investigate.

Re evaluate your assumptions based on science? What does this mean please, regarding the above example? I have no idea what you're saying. So aliens visited us. What's this got to do with science? I have no idea what you think science is at this point. Or what you think the alternative is. This really needs addressing as it seems to be a problem for many of your posts on this forum. Science is an umbrella term for the best tools at our disposal. If there's a problem with them, we look to improve them. There is no arbitrary cut off point. Again, what real problem are you talking about?

This will be my last attempt as I'm struggling to find any actual relevance to this whole discussion. I'm really trying. If we believed these accounts, then it sounds like the aliens have technology we're not familiar with allowing seemingly impossible travel speeds. The problems are to do with distance, not their existence. I have no idea why you think "science" is telling us there is probably no other life. Where did this come from? We've discovered hundreds of planets similar to ours, which may well support life. I've only ever heard scientists say that the probability that there is more life out there, somewhere, is high.

If anyone else can help me understand where RR might be coming from that would be great! I'm at the point of tapping out.