Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

RR i think your last post is broken. . . .missing a quote tag maybe?

The thing about the science you're talking about is that people DO lie or make mistakes.  That's why they have to very carefully detail their experimental methods and so on-- because if people just accept the scientists' conclusions, and do not carefully examine the facts, you might as well give the guy a black gown and a stick of incense.

And in the case of bad science getting accepted, this is sometimes the case, especially if the "scientist" goes to the media rather than to a peer-reviewed journal.  For example-- is MSG harmful?  If you think yes, you are a victim of bad science-- you've heard from many sources a certain conclusion, but don't know that it came from a weak, and now debunked, study

Thanks for the tip.

For your comments, I agree, but everything is not nearly that cut and dry either.   But I'm not in this discussion to talk about science (except for as it pertains to the discussion), so another time maybe.

[bennyboy]

I'm not trying to bend science or the standards of evidence.  Testimony as evidence has been regarded for some time, in legal and historical investigation.  And I think that you are more focused on the consequences in regards to religion in this discussion than I am. Now as far as I can gather, the only rational argument you have made is that testimony can be unreliable.  This included mistakes and lies.  If you wish to continue in the discussion, I think that it would be good, to expand further on this, and why testimony should not be considered evidence (as it is now).  It may be news to you, but anything involving people, can have mistakes or be lied about.   In the areas mentioned above (legal and historical) there are methods to detect these as well.

I still feel there's a disconnect here. I don't think anyone really disregards testimony as evidence. If there's a car crash, and no cameras, then you have to ask bystanders what they saw. But you always get people in court saying stuff like, "He veered to the side of his lane, like he was thinking about passing. . ." and the judge will tell the guy-- don't speculate, just say what you saw.

Again, the problem isn't with anecdotal evidence. It's that people's narratives are often colored by what they believe, and this can make them skew what they report, instead of telling literal truth. Worse, the person listening to the anecdote has the job of determining whether the report is being skewed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not cut and dry?  Okay.  RR, thousands of people report being abducted by aliens, and subjected to experiments of a sexual nature.

Credible? Evidence?

[bennyboy]

Not cut and dry?  Okay.  RR, thousands of people report being abducted by aliens, and subjected to experiments of a sexual nature.

Credible?  Evidence?

It's not so bad.  Hey, if enough of them get together, they can probably get tax exemptions.

[RoadRunner79]

Not cut and dry?  Okay.  RR, thousands of people report being abducted by aliens, and subjected to experiments of a sexual nature.

Credible? Evidence?

That sounds a lot like a trap, for exactly the type of concrete thinking, I'm trying to get around here.

Preliminary dismissal, based on the content, rather than the individual facts and descriptions.

[The Grand Nudger]

I only asked you whether or not you found the thousands of alien abduction anecdotes credible.  If you considered them evidence. Obviously, you don't, but realize that it would be difficult to maintain the charade after acknowledging that.

[RoadRunner79]

I only asked you whether or not you found the thousands of alien abduction anecdotes credible.  If you considered them evidence. Obviously, you don't, but realize that it would be difficult to maintain the charade after acknowledging that.

You won't get an answer either, if you keep trying to talk for me....

[bennyboy]

Not cut and dry?  Okay.  RR, thousands of people report being abducted by aliens, and subjected to experiments of a sexual nature.

Credible?  Evidence?

That sounds a lot like a trap, for exactly the type of concrete thinking, I'm trying to get around here.

Preliminary dismissal, based on the content, rather than the individual facts and descriptions.

RR, I gotta give you kudos for your patience.

However, it's still clear that you are trying to lay the groundwork for religious testimony as evidence of Jesus and/or God.

The fact is that we sometimes use testimonials or anecdotes as evidence, but that we know it's a particularly weak form of evidence.  If we really care about getting at absolute truth, then we need something more than that.

[RoadRunner79]

That sounds a lot like a trap, for exactly the type of concrete thinking, I'm trying to get around here.

Preliminary dismissal, based on the content, rather than the individual facts and descriptions.

RR, I gotta give you kudos for your patience.

However, it's still clear that you are trying to lay the groundwork for religious testimony as evidence of Jesus and/or God.

The fact is that we sometimes use testimonials or anecdotes as evidence, but that we know it's a particularly weak form of evidence.  If we really care about getting at absolute truth, then we need something more than that.

The reason it has come up, may be because of my religious beliefs. But I am really only trying to discuss this particular form of reasoning about knowledge. I would also disagree, that it is necessarily weak in nature.... but we can never get to that point.

I don't think that any motivations whether real or allusioned to by an interlocutor have any effect on the reasoning (neither do the consequences of a paticular case). This is about the general, not the specific.

[bennyboy]

The reason it has come up, may be because of my religious beliefs.  But I am really only trying to discuss this particular form of reasoning about knowledge.  I would also disagree, that it is necessarily weak in nature.... but we can never get to that point.

I don't think that any motivations whether real or allusioned to by an interlocutor have any effect on the reasoning (neither do the consequences of a paticular case).   This is about the general, not the specific.

To me, it's pretty simple. When you are taking evidence that cannot be confirmed (like by another ballistics expert for example), then you have to determine whether the evidence by anecdote has sufficient value to be taken into consideration. There's also, and this has been mentioned and I think it's crucially important-- the issue of setting the standard.

The standard is set by a number of factors-- the importance of the thing being asked about, the degree to which the listener resists the fact being asserted by the anecdote, the level of motivation of the anecdote-teller, and so on. If someone says they saw cold fusion in a lab, but the data was lost in a fire, I'd be REALLY suspicious, and would flat-out tell them to fuck off until they can show real experimental data-- that's because cold fusion is an issue of HUGE importance, and would be a game-changer if confirmed to be done under reasonable conditions.

Even more important is when someone tells me something that is CONTRARY to facts I already consider known. I know that things fall down when I let them go. If you told me that once, on a particularly stormy Friday evening, an apple fell UP, I'd file that away as 99% bullshit and 1% mystery. So if you, for example, say a man has walked on water, I'd want to inspect the site and look for a ledge or glass platform under its surface. I'd want him to reproduce the act in conditions under my control. I wouldn't say-- thousands of people say they saw him, so he must really have done what they say he did.