(October 31, 2016 at 8:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Benny,

Thanks for the conversation,  in many things, our thinking is not all that far apart.  I appreciate, that you explain your rational, and wanted to expand a little bit, on what I meant, that I think this discussion bares a interesting twist on the burden of proof.  The "burden of proof" means that it is upon the one making the claim, to provide sufficient warrant, for their position.   Similarly "evidence" is defined as anything which is used to support an assertion.  Therefore, if testimony, is not evidence, then the burden of proof, would require that the claim be demonstrated to the person, in order to provide sufficient reason for another to believe.  And not just one person, but each and every time thereafter.  Without doing so, then you cannot support you claim.  

Now you gave an example earlier of someone producing cold fusion.  And as discussed, we would differ, in that I would only require good testimonial support, that they had done so (This would include multiple people, and also showing, that they where able to confirm the claim).  On the other hand, you required, that it need to be reproduced.  For me this is the difference, between showing that they did produce a certain effect, and knowing how they did it.  However,  as a general principle, I think that we need to consider this not only in some claims, but in all claims (where the principle fits) or justify our reason's for why the principle does not need apply in that case. Or we are accepting much without sufficient reason.

I think you are hung up on the philosophical niceties of what "proof" is or "evidence." In the end, someone with an interest in asserting a claim must meet the standards of the one listening to it. Whether someone accepts testimony depends on who's giving the testimony, the listener's perceptions of the teller's motivations, the degree to which the claimed ideas falls outside the listener's world view or personal knowledge, etc.

So if I took the testimony of a group of scientists as evidence of cold fusion, despite having no record of experiment or ability to reproduce the experimental results, what does this mean? It means that the issue at hand is of little enough importance, or close enough to what I already believe, that I'm willing to accept that low standard of evidence. It's acceptable only to the degree to which I can't be bothered to follow up in seeking a more substantial proof.

In general, though, I'd say much MUCH more harm is done by accepting testimony than by rejecting it. How many lies have led to wrongful consequences? How many bullshit attestations have led people to buy crystals instead of medicine? How many Christian preachers have attested that the "devil made them" have sex with younger men, or that God told them they need a new private jet in order to carry out the work of God?

People say all kinds of shit, and call it "testimony," and you like us would immediately disregard 99% of it all. So the rule of thumb is this-- testimonial evidence should be considered valueless, unless special circumstances establish its value. And the LISTENER gets to decide when that is, not the teller.

(November 1, 2016 at 10:36 am)alpha male Wrote: Scientific evidence is nice, but it has limits which make anecdotal evidence necessary in many circumstances.

All those circumstances start with the exclamation "Shit, we've got nothing". That should tell you something about the veracity of the stuff you hold dear.

(November 1, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 10:36 am)alpha male Wrote: Scientific evidence is nice, but it has limits which make anecdotal evidence necessary in many circumstances.

All those circumstances start with the exclamation "Shit, we've got nothing". That should tell you something about the veracity of the stuff you hold dear.

You're projecting. Reasonable people can review the evidence regarding the gettysburg address and come to a conclusion regarding it. It seems to scare you that people can do so without a scientist telling them what to think about it.

(November 1, 2016 at 10:36 am)alpha male Wrote: Scientific evidence is nice, but it has limits which make anecdotal evidence necessary in many circumstances.

Lol it has limits therefore we should settle for non-evidence in MANY circumstances?

Anecdote is not evidence.

(November 1, 2016 at 1:56 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: All those circumstances start with the exclamation "Shit, we've got nothing". That should tell you something about the veracity of the stuff you hold dear.

You're projecting.

Ad hom. I am not. But it is a fact that when religions think they have science on their side the proclaim it loudly from the tree tops, like with all them fundagelical christians and muslims who go around saying "the bible/qu'ran predicted this scientific formula with this incredibly vague and meaningless passage of text".

Quote:Reasonable people can review the evidence regarding the Gettysburg address and come to a conclusion regarding it.

A) What the flying fuck does the Gettysburg address (note I corrected your capitalisation) have to do with science.
B) You are trying to make out that anecdote is as good as evidence yet you don't talk about anecdote.

Quote:It seems to scare you that people can do so without a scientist telling them what to think about it.

Now it is you who is putting thoughts into people's heads which don't exist. I am not scared by idiots fooled by Dunning Krueger. I am worried sometimes about the consequences of people who should know better, like politicians pandering to climate change deniers and creatards, enabling the idiots.

Historical writings that pre date modern journalism are considered suspect.

Quote:Geoffrey of Monmouth is singled out from the list because, on the one hand, he was one of the most popular historians in England of this period. On the other hand, his Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) was considered almost entirely fiction and was not considered authentic history by some other contemporary historians. Kings of Britain covers the legend of King Arthur as well as other Welsh legends of the early period of England, and was presented, and often accepted, as actual English history. It was extremely popular, but other contemporary historians, interested in impartiality and truth, were highly critical of Geoffrey. William of Newburgh devotes an extended section of the preface of Historia to discredit Geoffrey, saying at one point "only a person ignorant of ancient history would have any doubt about how shamelessly and impudently he lies in almost everything".[12] The discussion over the historical basis for King Arthur continues to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historians...iddle_Ages

(November 1, 2016 at 2:03 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Lol it has limits

Yes, science has limits.

Quote:therefore we should settle for non-evidence

No, we should use evidence other than scientific.

Quote:in MANY circumstances?

Yes - in those circumstances in which there isn't scientific evidence.

Saying lol and repeating my points doesn't make them go away.

Quote:Anecdote is not evidence.

We don't have scientific evidence that either Trump or Clinton will be a better president. Clinton says this, Trump says that, and we decide anyway. Reality is that the people who claim that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all use it nearly as much as everyone else. You have to to get through life.

(November 1, 2016 at 2:08 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: A) What the flying fuck does the Gettysburg address (note I corrected your capitalisation) have to do with science.

BINGO!

You're agreeing with my point and don't even realize it. There are issues which science can't, or chooses not to, study. Yet, reasonable people hold positions on such issues based on anecdotal evidence. Some of our most important life decisions are based on anecdotal evidence rather than science.

(November 1, 2016 at 3:27 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 2:08 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: A) What the flying fuck does the Gettysburg address (note I corrected your capitalisation) have to do with science.

BINGO!

You're agreeing with my point and don't even realize it. There are issues which science can't, or chooses not to, study. Yet, reasonable people hold positions on such issues based on anecdotal evidence. Some of our most important life decisions are based on anecdotal evidence rather than science.

Even so, scientific evidence is always the best form of evidence regardless. And we definitely don't want to rely on pure anecdotes for claims that are extraordinary in nature.

There's no such thing as anecdotal evidence. Anecdote is not evidence. Period. It's absolutely bullshit to say that our most important life decisions are based on hearsay... our most important life decisions are based on following either our head or our hearts. Period.