(October 27, 2016 at 8:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Here I disagree, I don't think that evidence needs to be reproducible or that a conflict of interest always is against evidence.  If I where to produce evidence which shows that I did not commit the murder on trail for, I certainly have an interest in being shown as innocent, but it doesn't follow, that the evidence is invalidated because of that.

If there's a conflict of interest AND a person cannot produce reproducible evidence, their testimony is garbage. If a scientist says he produce cold fusion, he has a personal motivation in being the guy to produce cold fusion. If he says, ". . . but my data got lost in a lab fire," then you'll say. . . okay either tell us how to do it, do it again with better documentation, or stop wasting our time.

As for the murder trial. . . nobody in this thread is talking about "producing evidence." We're talking about anecdotes. . . the use of personal testimony as evidence. When a criminal says, "Eh. . . that knife ain't mine. . . I think I saw some dude. . . yeah, that's it, I saw some dude walking by here a minute ago it must be his. . ." he has a personal interest in the outcome AND he can't produce evidence supporting his anecdote. His word is garbage-- complete, absolute zero value.


So if a Christian starts telling me that God is real, I'll ask if they have a personal motivation in making me believe so. The answer, pretty obviously, is yes. Then I'll ask for other evidence supporting their claim that God is real-- miracles caught on camera, for example. And when they can't provide it, I'll say the same thing I would say to the scientist: "I think you have a personal motivation, and you don't have evidence, so I'm not really going to entertain your claim at this time. Come back when you have something more persuasive."

Has 'anecdotal evidence' now become a euphemism for 'revelation'? The change in terms doesn't make the burning bush story any more believable. Keep in mind that this is the same dude that disappeared and came back with some special rules. Anybody else see a pattern?

Jormungger (sp?) had it right earlier. Believability comes down to the claim and the source among other variables.

I conclude that the entire purpose of this thread is an attempt to lead us heathens toward the reasonable light of the power of anectotal evidence only to find that it's a revelation freight train bearing down on our asses.

RoadRunner,
Nobody is taking the bait; time to cut the line.

There's no objective way to assess an anecdote. You say it's credible. I say it isn't. Then what?

Supporting evidence. [emoji57]

What, you mean more anecdotes?

Precisely! [emoji1]

(October 27, 2016 at 9:25 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 8:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Here I disagree, I don't think that evidence needs to be reproducible or that a conflict of interest always is against evidence.  If I where to produce evidence which shows that I did not commit the murder on trail for, I certainly have an interest in being shown as innocent, but it doesn't follow, that the evidence is invalidated because of that.

If there's a conflict of interest AND a person cannot produce reproducible evidence, their testimony is garbage.  If a scientist says he produce cold fusion, he has a personal motivation in being the guy to produce cold fusion.  If he says, ". . . but my data got lost in a lab fire," then you'll say. . . okay either tell us how to do it, do it again with better documentation, or stop wasting our time.

As for the murder trial. . . nobody in this thread is talking about "producing evidence."  We're talking about anecdotes. . . the use of personal testimony as evidence.  When a criminal says, "Eh. . . that knife ain't mine. . . I think I saw some dude. . . yeah, that's it, I saw some dude walking by here a minute ago it must be his. . ." he has a personal interest in the outcome AND he can't produce evidence supporting his anecdote.  His word is garbage-- complete, absolute zero value.


So if a Christian starts telling me that God is real, I'll ask if they have a personal motivation in making me believe so.  The answer, pretty obviously, is yes.  Then I'll ask for other evidence supporting their claim that God is real-- miracles caught on camera, for example.  And when they can't provide it, I'll say the same thing I would say to the scientist: "I think you have a personal motivation, and you don't have evidence, so I'm not really going to entertain your claim at this time.  Come back when you have something more persuasive."

I do think that your take on things, provides an interesting twist on the Burden of Proof. 

Concerning your lab fire, and the cold fusion machine.  Do you think that there is a difference, between demonstrating, that cold fusion was achieved, and that one know's how to produce cold fusion (or can do it again)?

(October 27, 2016 at 9:58 pm)Cato Wrote: Has 'anecdotal evidence' now become a euphemism for 'revelation'? The change in terms doesn't make the burning bush story any more believable. Keep in mind that this is the same dude that disappeared and came back with some special rules. Anybody else see a pattern?

Jormungger (sp?) had it right earlier. Believability comes down to the claim and the source among other variables.

I conclude that the entire purpose of this thread is an attempt to lead us heathens toward the reasonable light of the power of anectotal evidence only to find that it's a revelation freight train bearing down on our asses.

RoadRunner,
Nobody is taking the bait; time to cut the line.

As I had said before, I think that anecdotal is being used in an awkward and unusual fashion.   The definition I was given, was something similar to non-repeatable verbal or written account.  But this usage of the term, became awkward for me to use, and so I have since switched to testimony.   If there is a difference, in what is meant, then I would like to hear it. 

As to the purpose of this thread, I think, that you shouldn't jump to conclusions.   It was only to discuss the value of testimony as evidence, and perhaps also to learn the rules in regards to how you guys think.   There are a lot of discussions, such as evolution, which become much easier, if I follow those rules.   I don't think it is useful, but that is why I wanted to discuss.

(October 27, 2016 at 8:51 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 8:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I had said... not normally

Not to me, at least not that I think. Which post? You did agree that there were vaccinations and autism.

So why not normally? They are certainly sincere. They are adamant. They are thousands if not more. They have well documented cases. They have found support in some of the health care community. When you combine all of their stories, that certainly makes for powerful testimony. What in their anecdotal evidence do you not find convincing or believable?

And could you compare/contrast the differences between your "not normally" position with this case and in other cases (your choice) where it would be "yes" (choose your own word if you find yes not fitting).

I may have responded to someone else.

I don't think that there is anything non-convincing or unbelievable in the anecdotes.   However cherry picking data, or making a hasty generalization about what is normal based a  limited accounts is not correct either.

(October 28, 2016 at 11:53 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 27, 2016 at 8:51 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Not to me, at least not that I think. Which post? You did agree that there were vaccinations and autism.

So why not normally? They are certainly sincere. They are adamant. They are thousands if not more. They have well documented cases. They have found support in some of the health care community. When you combine all of their stories, that certainly makes for powerful testimony. What in their anecdotal evidence do you not find convincing or believable?

And could you compare/contrast the differences between your "not normally" position with this case and in other cases (your choice) where it would be "yes" (choose your own word if you find yes not fitting).

I may have responded to someone else.

I don't think that there is anything non-convincing or unbelievable in the anecdotes.   However cherry picking data, or making a hasty generalization about what is normal based a  limited accounts is not correct either.

This is your idea of an adequate response to my post? If they are not "non-convincing or unbelievable" are you saying that you now believe? Or is this basically double talk so that you can maintain your thread position with a non answer?

What cherry picking data? What hasty generalization? What limited accounts" More double talk?

Go and believe your anecdotes, for your own reasons. Don't expect others to find those reasons rational or acceptable. Much the same as I find your reply.