(November 8, 2016 at 8:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR, you're being stupid, is the point.  Cops exist.  Guns exist.  Cops shoot people sometimes.  How do I know these things are facts?  Because I wake up every day, leave my house, and interact with the physical world around me.

So, you know these things via anecdotal evidence:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdotal?s=t

Quote:based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:
anecdotal evidence.

Quote:I mean...the fact you even asked such an assanine question in the first place; that someone should have to explain to you the difference between a claim that police offers exist versus a claim that a human being came back from the dead after three days, completely exposes how dishonest you are being.

Of course there's a difference. Anecdotal evidence isn't automatically accepted. There are different criteria we use to evaluate it, and different people weight those criteria differently.  

So...why do some people argue that anecdotal evidence is useless?

(November 8, 2016 at 9:37 am)Rhythm Wrote: Yet another shitpost propping up a previous shitpost.  You don't think that a human being declared doa by forensic evidence that indicates that said person was shot by the service pistol of a particular police officer who is on video shooting said person would qualify as "scientific evidence"?  Or is that anecdote, to your mind?

Do you think that the Harry Potter movies are in any way equivalent to that?

Because unless you do.....and lets be honest here..if you do there's no sense in speaking to you anymore, we need to call your handlers and get you back to a safe place where you can't choke on the crayons.....you have yourself another non-starter.

No.... I said, that I thought it was a bad argument... but akin to one I often see by regulars here... Am I safe to assume that you agree, that simply making a comparison to Harry Potter, is not a good argument...or reasoning for that matter?

Something tells me that you've misunderstood the arguments you "often see by regulars" or that you're just transporting them here in yet another vain attempt to totally not talk about the thing you're totally not talking about.  

If it annoys you to see your silly bible stories compared to harry potter, perhaps you should stop telling us that magic and wizards are real?  Because as far as that goes....silly bible stories and harry potter stories -are- entirely equivalent. Your silly bible stories arent the forensic evidence in the "forensic evidence vs harry potter" comparison...if we're going to use this one to flog your grievances. Silly bible stories are, in fact, anecdote. They don't even rise to the low bar of testimony...and they're certainly not worth the paper that forensics or science would wipe it's ass with. In that respect, they -are- harry potter stories...and no, sorry, denied... it's not a bad argument, or poor reasoning, to point that out. It's just a statement of fact.

(November 8, 2016 at 2:48 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 1:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: If there were an equivocation award here at AF, it would go to RR.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means...what you think it means!

Lol, okay RR. So you're not going to try and equivocate between testimony and scientific evidence then? You're NOT implying that claims falling within the realm of the natural world are on equal turf with supernatural claims? These are not your positions?

I'll tell you what then. Why don't you do everyone a favor and come to what your point actually is, for once. That way you don't have to worry about being called out on the logical fallacies you commit. Eh? [emoji57]

(November 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 9:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, here it comes.  Now we're going to conflate actual evidence, including any scientific evidence that may exist for a particular claim, with testimony.  Why you think peer reviewed scientific evidence is at all relevant or appropriate in the case of whether or not cops exist and shoot people is...beyond my comprehension. I mean, in terms of scientific evidence, are you talking about things like criminal forensics?  Ballistics results?  Blood spatter?  Determination of probable murder weapons?  Because...ya know...that IS actually science, lol.

I think you are confused (that is not my position at all)....

.

Of course it's not. You don't ever seem to actually have one, do you?

Quote:testimony, only applies, when one shares the personal experience or observation, and the receiver did not see or experience the evidence first hand. It is a transfer of knowledge, from one to another. And I only brought up the scientific peer review thing, because that too is often misappropiately roughy up as a rejection at times here. I am glad that you can see the category error.

I have no idea what you were trying to say here. Sorry.

Let's try this another way: do you believe the supernatural claims of the bible solely on the basis of what you consider to be testimonial evidence? Yes, or no?

(November 8, 2016 at 5:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think you are confused (that is not my position at all)....

.

Of course it's not.  You don't ever seem to actually have one, do you?

Quote:testimony, only applies, when one shares the personal experience or observation, and the receiver did not see or experience the evidence first hand.  It is a transfer of knowledge, from one to another. And I only brought up the scientific peer review thing, because that too is often misappropiately  roughy up as a rejection at times here.   I am glad that you can see the category error.

I have no idea what you were trying to say here.  Sorry.

Let's try this another way:  do you believe the supernatural claims of the bible solely on the basis of what you consider to be testimonial evidence?  Yes, or no?

I predict an evasion on his part.

(November 8, 2016 at 3:27 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 8:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: RR, you're being stupid, is the point.  Cops exist.  Guns exist.  Cops shoot people sometimes.  How do I know these things are facts?  Because I wake up every day, leave my house, and interact with the physical world around me.

So, you know these things via anecdotal evidence:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdotal?s=t

Quote:based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:
anecdotal evidence.

Quote:I mean...the fact you even asked such an assanine question in the first place; that someone should have to explain to you the difference between a claim that police offers exist versus a claim that a human being came back from the dead after three days, completely exposes how dishonest you are being.

Of course there's a difference. Anecdotal evidence isn't automatically accepted. There are different criteria we use to evaluate it, and different people weight those criteria differently.  

So...why do some people argue that anecdotal evidence is useless?

Anecdote - a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Whether or not an anecdote should be accepted as evidence, especially evidence for supernatural claims, is the issue here. Of course, the answer is unequivocally, "No." Anecdotes alone should never be accepted as definitive evidence for a claim that defies what science has established about the nature of our reality.

The problem for RR is that he doesn't want to admit that his religious beliefs require a much stronger evidential case than other, more mundane claims, in order to be accepted as likely to be true. This is a problem for him because such a case does not exist.

Double post

(November 8, 2016 at 5:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 2:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think you are confused (that is not my position at all)....

.

Of course it's not.  You don't ever seem to actually have one, do you?

You could go back and read the rest after you cut off my quote!

Quote:

Quote:testimony, only applies, when one shares the personal experience or observation, and the receiver did not see or experience the evidence first hand.  It is a transfer of knowledge, from one to another. And I only brought up the scientific peer review thing, because that too is often misappropiately  roughy up as a rejection at times here.   I am glad that you can see the category error.

I have no idea what you were trying to say here.  Sorry.

Let's try this another way:  do you believe the supernatural claims of the bible solely on the basis of what you consider to be testimonial evidence?  Yes, or no?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I believe in the the philosophical and scientific evidence as well.

(November 8, 2016 at 5:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 2:48 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You keep using that word, I do not think it means...what you think it means!

Lol, okay RR.  So you're not going to try and equivocate between testimony and scientific evidence then?   You're NOT implying that claims falling within the realm of the natural world are on equal turf with supernatural claims?  These are not your positions?

I'll tell you what then.  Why don't you do everyone a favor and come to what your point actually is, for once.  That way you don't have to worry about being called out on the logical fallacies you commit.  Eh?  [emoji57]

I am saying that scientific testimony is testimony, and therefore the principles concerning testimony you hold to apply.   If you are going to make a distinction between the descriptive word scientific or religious  or whatever category you place before testimony then I think that you need to justify that difference rationally.

Quote:You're NOT implying that claims falling within the realm of the natural world are on equal turf with supernatural claims?

As I have stated before, I don't make this type of categorical a priori distinction, I believe the strength is determined by the individual evidence, and may be stronger or weaker depending on the individual case.