(November 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: 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.

So not on science but on personal subjective experience.

And, by the way, Alasdair, it's your personal view (shared by some skeptics) that anecdotes are not evidence. But this is debatable. And frankly, it's not the point anyway. Evidence or not, anecdotes at best can only provide very limited support to one's claims.

(November 1, 2016 at 11:55 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(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.

Thanks Benny,

I don't think that we are as far a part, as it may seem.  I agree, I think that some of the issue is semantics, and what is meant by evidence.  I appreciate you explaining your view; it helps me to understand quite a bit.  In contrast, I think that evidence, is more the reason, that I am persuaded rather than the other way around of becoming evidence; because I am persuaded by it (at least I hope so).  I believe that persuasion is subjective, and what you may find appealing, I may not.  Reason and thus what is reasonable I think are objective, and exist whether or not anyone is swayed by it.   I can provide you with evidence, but I cannot make you be persuaded.   I can also wrestle with and admit evidence, even though I may not be convinced by it.  

Again, I'm not saying, that you trust every claim that is thrown your way.   I am skeptical..... I check things out.   And despite the many imagined motivations for me creating this thread, a primary reason, was because I don't just buy into the claim that testimony is not evidence.  I don't automatically dismiss it either, and wanted to discuss and test this claim.   I'm not cynical enough, to just dismiss 99% of testimony as B.S.  And humility prevents me, from thinking that I know it all, or can judge based on what I know.  But I do question, and more likely than not, look for collaborating evidence.

(November 1, 2016 at 10:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 11:55 am)bennyboy Wrote: 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.

Thanks Benny,

I don't think that we are as far a part, as it may seem.  I agree, I think that some of the issue is semantics, and what is meant by evidence.  I appreciate you explaining your view; it helps me to understand quite a bit.  In contrast, I think that evidence, is more the reason, that I am persuaded rather than the other way around of becoming evidence; because I am persuaded by it (at least I hope so).  I believe that persuasion is subjective, and what you may find appealing, I may not.  Reason and thus what is reasonable I think are objective, and exist whether or not anyone is swayed by it.   I can provide you with evidence, but I cannot make you be persuaded.   I can also wrestle with and admit evidence, even though I may not be convinced by it.  

Again, I'm not saying, that you trust every claim that is thrown your way.   I am skeptical..... I check things out.   And despite the many imagined motivations for me creating this thread, a primary reason, was because I don't just buy into the claim that testimony is not evidence.  I don't automatically dismiss it either, and wanted to discuss and test this claim.   I'm not cynical enough, to just dismiss 99% of testimony as B.S.  And humility prevents me, from thinking that I know it all, or can judge based on what I know.  But I do question, and more likely than not, look for collaborating evidence.

Testimony is not necessarily 100% bullshit, of course. But you can't ever rely on testimony as your primary evidence for claims that are non-mundane and especially that relate to knowledge about the way reality is and works.

Let me go on a diversion, about Christianity. In my opinion, the emphasis on belief in the Jesus story, or even in God, loses out to a modern educated disinterest. Christianity as a way of life-- avoiding deleterious behaviors, fostering love as a way of life, constant self-reflection and so on, are really the things that matter.

The difference is that you could probably find lots of evidence of Bible reading and contemplation improving people's lives. I'd start in prison for an easy example, or to those who find community after loss of a loved one. That stuff still matters. Trying to get people to believe the testimony of sand dwellers of thousands of years ago, who didn't share our world view and skepticism, is just not a path to utility.

My position is if there's a God, and he wants more than just basic human decency, then he will understand that it must come in new modern garb-- not expect good people to accept ancient mythologies without any really compelling reason to do so.

(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.

Your point was "evidence isn't enough, we must therefore give anecdote the same status". At no point did I, consciously or otherwise, give that piece of idiocy the time of day, never mind agreeing with it.

But then, I must remember that you are a christard who is practised at twisting other peoples' words in your head to make you think they agree with you.

Reasonable people can disagree on matters where there is insufficient evidence to come to a definitive conclusion on that matter. For example reasonable people can disagree on the best punishment for a particular crime. But, resonable people will not disagree on evolution, they accept the scientific explanation for it because the evidence is so strong.

(November 1, 2016 at 9:47 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: 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.

So not on science but on personal subjective experience.

Which makes it invalid.

Quote:And, by the way, Alasdair, it's your personal view (shared by some skeptics) that anecdotes are not evidence. But this is debatable.

Well, it's able to be debated. If you tell someone a story it's not evidence. That would make the Bible evidence.

Quote: And frankly, it's not the point anyway. Evidence or not, anecdotes at best can only provide very limited support to one's claims.

But they don't provide any support at all.

Also, my emphasis in your quote above. Regarding that emphasis: it's not true that evidence or not anything can provide support to one's claims. Something can only provide support to one's claims if it's evidence. Evidence is that which provides support to one's claims. So it's not true that evidence or not anecdotes can provide even limited support. Because it's not true that anything can provide even limited support, or that anything can provide any support, to one's claims, without it also being evidence. If it provides even limited support to the claims, then it's evidence.

But it can't be evidence because anecdotes are not evidence/support to one's claims. People may disagree, but that doesn't make it evidence. People may think something is evident to them but that doesn't make it evident to them. People think ghosts are evident to them.... and those people are wrong. When they think they perceive a ghost or that a ghost is evident to them, they're wrong. They objectively do not perceive such a thing. Their perceive no such ghost... it's merely that their senses tell them otherwise because their senses about their perceptions are insensible.

Now... regarding it "not being the point."It's my point. It's my point because this thread is about "anecdotal evidence" and that's an oxymoron. It's like "unproven proof".

It's like adding up a bunch of non-evidence and thinking that that makes it become evidence... or mistaking plausibility for probability....and...

...and basically it's analogous with this: It's like saying that if you add up enough zeros that that will make the number 1. Or saying that if the number 1 appeals to you enough, or the number 0 doesn't appeal to you enough, then you can pretend that the number 0 is the number 1. (In the analogy, the number "0" is non-evidence and the number "1" is evidence).

This is a little too assertive a position to have, though. If anecdotes don't lend any support whatsoever, then the courts should do away with witness testimonies. They're virtually pointless given your argument.

(November 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: 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.

Of course there's such a thing as anecdotal evidence. How many times have you seen a thread started by an atheist along the lines of Should I date a theist, or Should I tell my parents/co-workers I'm an atheist? How do people answer? They give their personal experience, or sometimes that of a friend - anecdotes.

(November 2, 2016 at 8:56 am)Irrational Wrote: This is a little too assertive a position to have, though. If anecdotes don't lend any support whatsoever, then the courts should do away with witness testimonies. They're virtually pointless given your argument.

It's not the anecdotes that are evidence... it's the fact the anecdotes are consistent with each other plus there also being evidence that it's unlikely that one person has started an anecdote and the rest have just followed suit. Like... if some of the witnesses were not even in communication with each other and there's evidence of that, then it can't be a case of one person believing and the rest following suit. Then the consistency between the anecdotes means something. The anecdotes themselves are not evidence.

TL;DR: Without inductive reasoning of any kind there is no evidence.

(November 2, 2016 at 8:56 am)alpha male Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: 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.

Of course there's such a thing as anecdotal evidence. How many times have you seen a thread started by an atheist along the lines of Should I date a theist, or Should I tell my parents/co-workers I'm an atheist? How do people answer? They give their personal experience, or sometimes that of a friend - anecdotes.

You're going from an "is" to an "ought" here, from facts to values. What people give as reasons and stories when advising what they think others should do has absolutely nothing to do with facts or evidence.