Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(October 28, 2016 at 1:45 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In terms of fostering a persuasive argument, yes. It does matter.
I would agree.... demonstrating that it happened, is not the same as demonstrating that you can do it again.
That's not what I meant. I think I misunderstood your question.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
October 28, 2016 at 8:03 pm (This post was last modified: October 28, 2016 at 8:07 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(October 28, 2016 at 6:22 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
(October 28, 2016 at 4:14 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I normally do believe that they where vaccinated, and where diagnosed with autism shortly after.
I'm not really sure what you are asking here?
Cherry picking data, means that you are only taking the data which supports your case, while ignoring that which does not.
Hasty Generalization and limited accounts I guess is kind of redundant. It means forming a general conclusion, based on a small sample size.
Evasive again. This is the act of the desperate.
I'll put it this way, biblical testimony is lacking in evidence. Even if it was first person evidence (which I believe it is not) I will not believe it based on any position that you have put forward in this thread.
There is no cherry picking data from the anti-vaxers, it is there for all to see. Plus, if you thought the 'vaccination/autism" testimony was cherry picked, I said you could pick another case (look above-said "your choice") but you declined. Another act of desperation. And there are not "limited accounts" from the anti-vaxers, as I said there are thousands if not more. That is not a small sample size. You are making an application that is incorrect, desperation, desperation, desperation.
And then, "not sure what you are asking". One more desperate act of playing ignorant. I asked if you could explain how you came to the "not normally" belief statement regarding "vaccination causes autism" and how this compares to any other testimony for any case of your choice (note: not cherry picking) where you could make a "yes" belief statement. And then compare and contrast the evidence that has you come to a different conclusion for each case. Can you understand this?
Again, if you want to believe in biblical testimony, I don't care. Just stop playing ignorant. I find it irritating because I don't believe that you are ignorant but using it as a ploy. If it continues then I'll be left with no choice but to bring your intelligence into question.
If you can't answer directly then you have no answers and should stop.
RR has used this same transparent tactic on me in the past as well. When he gets cornered he suddenly pretends he doesn't understand what you're asking him. And he doesn't let it go, lol. He'd rather come across as a complete nit wit than admit he doesn't have an answer that won't let all the air out of his argument.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(October 28, 2016 at 6:22 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Evasive again. This is the act of the desperate.
I'll put it this way, biblical testimony is lacking in evidence. Even if it was first person evidence (which I believe it is not) I will not believe it based on any position that you have put forward in this thread.
There is no cherry picking data from the anti-vaxers, it is there for all to see. Plus, if you thought the 'vaccination/autism" testimony was cherry picked, I said you could pick another case (look above-said "your choice") but you declined. Another act of desperation. And there are not "limited accounts" from the anti-vaxers, as I said there are thousands if not more. That is not a small sample size. You are making an application that is incorrect, desperation, desperation, desperation.
And then, "not sure what you are asking". One more desperate act of playing ignorant. I asked if you could explain how you came to the "not normally" belief statement regarding "vaccination causes autism" and how this compares to any other testimony for any case of your choice (note: not cherry picking) where you could make a "yes" belief statement. And then compare and contrast the evidence that has you come to a different conclusion for each case. Can you understand this?
Again, if you want to believe in biblical testimony, I don't care. Just stop playing ignorant. I find it irritating because I don't believe that you are ignorant but using it as a ploy. If it continues then I'll be left with no choice but to bring your intelligence into question.
If you can't answer directly then you have no answers and should stop.
RR has used this same transparent tactic on me in the past as well. When he gets cornered he suddenly pretends he doesn't understand what you're asking him. And he doesn't let it go, lol. He'd rather come across as a complete nit wit than admit he doesn't have an answer that won't let all the air out of his argument.
October 29, 2016 at 2:48 am (This post was last modified: October 29, 2016 at 2:52 am by Ravenshire.)
(October 23, 2016 at 1:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(October 22, 2016 at 11:21 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Before this atrocity of equivocation goes any further, maybe we should take a look at what RoadRunner's looking for.
Anecdotes are never going to be accepted as evidence of anything, legal or otherwise. They are not evidence in any way, shape or form, nor are they meant to be.
Testimony, on the other hand, can be used as evidence.
Maybe you'd like to re-phrase the question RoadRunner since there really isn't such a thing as "anecdotal evidence." Even if we go with testimony, I've never heard of a conviction being handed down solely on the strength of witness testimony (please provide evidence of any claim to the contrary). Evidence is weightier than testimony and anecdotes aren't even that. They're stories for fucks sake. Many people use them to illustrate a point or as a teaching tool, but they're still only stories
I too would like to hear RoadRunner's thoughts on all the anecdotes (and even witness testimony) of alien abductions seeing as he merely dodged the question put to him by Rhythm.
I agree with you, and it's why I have been saying since the beginning, that I think that the use of anecdote (as I have found it used here at times) is awkward.
I honestly think many here speak of anecdotal evidence because there are so many anecdotes presented here as evidence by believers.
(October 23, 2016 at 1:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't have a specific example to look up (and don't think it would be that easy to google) as far as a conviction based only on witness testimony, however the following, gives many examples concerning the weight of testimony. http://randalrauser.com/2013/12/rd-miksa...testimony/
I'm going to withdraw my objection about testimony alone getting convictions. It seems it happens frighteningly often (it's actually quite easy to google). I will instead present a counter to the link you provided, which struck me as an opinion piece by someone with an agenda. This link is to an article on the pros and cons of testimonial evidence. It also contains an embedded Ted Talk by a forensic expert on the efficacy of testimonial evidence. If you truly want to understand why most of us here tend to discount even eye witness testimony, and dismiss anecdotes and allegory out of hand, watch the video. Before watching the video, let me ask you ask you a question (the relevancy will become clear in the video). On 9/11, both of the trade center towers were destroyed. How long after seeing the first tower collapse did you see the second tower collapse? A few minutes? An hour or two? Hours later? The next day? Some time in the following week? Whatever your answer is, write it down before you watch the video.
This link is another look at the same issues as the video in the other link. Pretty damning stuff on the reliability of eye witness testimony.
(October 23, 2016 at 1:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to the testimony concerning alien's, I do think that some accounts can be explained, but there are some also, which do have a hint of credibility to them. There are some interesting parallels in abductions claims but most only have single witness support. I am somewhat skeptical.
Actually, the question was regarding alien abduction, but I'll grant you broadening it to aliens in general. If you're skeptical of aliens visiting our tiny speck of the cosmos then surely you can understand our skepticism of religious claims. The actual evidence that can be presented for the case for God is exclusively testimonial and worse, it's (at best) hearsay. There is no physical evidence. No smoking gun, no DNA evidence, no forensic traces at all. Only writings which are, by the most liberal interpretation of the dating, a couple decades removed from the events they purport to report.
If the state were required to prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think, even considering what I've learned about testimonial evidence, they could satisfy their burden of proof with an unbiased jury.
ETA:
Apologies for taking so long to reply. I don't have the time I once had for the forums and I wanted to research my responses before I made them. Turned out to be a good idea since my responses wound up quite different from what I anticipated.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
October 31, 2016 at 8:51 pm (This post was last modified: October 31, 2016 at 8:51 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote:
(October 28, 2016 at 11:50 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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.
I'm with you, to a degree, on evolution. It's a much more subtle and philosophical position than it is normally taken for. I find it particularly annoying that it is often couched in narratives based on what we assume were environmental pressures for a given species-- "Oh, well there must have been a shortage of leaves, so the longer necks were obviously the species' response to increased competition for food" or whatever. There literally is no physical trait or behavior that someone can't make up a story for, and these narratives get passed on as science.
That being said, evolution as adaptation of existing species is done in labs with flies and so on, and I believe it is reproducible given a simple enough species and very highly controlled environmental "pressures."
Something similar happens in complex ANN's (artificial neural networks), in which you can get some very interesting results, but you cannot actually observe all the many changes and processes which lead to them. You just know that given x number of "trials," you can achieve y results. Or, for that matter, in the human mind, in which you can know a lot about how brain chemistry works, but not too much about how it results in the ability to subjectively experience.
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.
(October 29, 2016 at 2:48 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:
(October 23, 2016 at 1:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I agree with you, and it's why I have been saying since the beginning, that I think that the use of anecdote (as I have found it used here at times) is awkward.
I honestly think many here speak of anecdotal evidence because there are so many anecdotes presented here as evidence by believers.
(October 23, 2016 at 1:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't have a specific example to look up (and don't think it would be that easy to google) as far as a conviction based only on witness testimony, however the following, gives many examples concerning the weight of testimony. http://randalrauser.com/2013/12/rd-miksa...testimony/
I'm going to withdraw my objection about testimony alone getting convictions. It seems it happens frighteningly often (it's actually quite easy to google). I will instead present a counter to the link you provided, which struck me as an opinion piece by someone with an agenda. This link is to an article on the pros and cons of testimonial evidence. It also contains an embedded Ted Talk by a forensic expert on the efficacy of testimonial evidence. If you truly want to understand why most of us here tend to discount even eye witness testimony, and dismiss anecdotes and allegory out of hand, watch the video. Before watching the video, let me ask you ask you a question (the relevancy will become clear in the video). On 9/11, both of the trade center towers were destroyed. How long after seeing the first tower collapse did you see the second tower collapse? A few minutes? An hour or two? Hours later? The next day? Some time in the following week? Whatever your answer is, write it down before you watch the video.
I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but my guess would be about a half hour to 1 hour later (for the second plane at the trade center). I have never denied many of the things in such articles, and think that they should be considered when looking at testimony. Most of them, are about the ability to pick someone out of a line up, interrogator contamination and that memory is not like a video tape (hope they didn't spend too much money figuring out that one). However in a number of times asking, I haven't had anyone discuss anything about the particulars in those studies (I'm starting to think, that people didn't read past the titles, or give it any thought). How do we apply them to witness testimony? Also, I'm curious, how many people remember the second tower being brought down by a car bomb that day?
Quote:
(October 23, 2016 at 1:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to the testimony concerning alien's, I do think that some accounts can be explained, but there are some also, which do have a hint of credibility to them. There are some interesting parallels in abductions claims but most only have single witness support. I am somewhat skeptical.
Actually, the question was regarding alien abduction, but I'll grant you broadening it to aliens in general. If you're skeptical of aliens visiting our tiny speck of the cosmos then surely you can understand our skepticism of religious claims. The actual evidence that can be presented for the case for God is exclusively testimonial and worse, it's (at best) hearsay. There is no physical evidence. No smoking gun, no DNA evidence, no forensic traces at all. Only writings which are, by the most liberal interpretation of the dating, a couple decades removed from the events they purport to report.
If the state were required to prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think, even considering what I've learned about testimonial evidence, they could satisfy their burden of proof with an unbiased jury.
Just to clarify, I do think that there are some interesting stories, of alien abductions. I have never checked into them very much. I did recently read a book "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men" by Hugh Ross. I think that there was times in the book where he tried to stretch things a little to far; but, there was some accounts which may supply a little evidence. However being skeptical, doesn't mean that I don't accept testimony, on such cases, but that I think critically about it and don't take things for granted. I don't just dismiss them as false, before I even look at the evidence (that is pseudo-skepticism).
Quote:ETA:
Apologies for taking so long to reply. I don't have the time I once had for the forums and I wanted to research my responses before I made them. Turned out to be a good idea since my responses wound up quite different from what I anticipated.
No problem in the time, I understand, and would much rather have a good response, rather then quick rhetoric.
(October 28, 2016 at 4:14 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I normally do believe that they where vaccinated, and where diagnosed with autism shortly after.
I'm not really sure what you are asking here?
Cherry picking data, means that you are only taking the data which supports your case, while ignoring that which does not.
Hasty Generalization and limited accounts I guess is kind of redundant. It means forming a general conclusion, based on a small sample size.
Evasive again. This is the act of the desperate.
I'll put it this way, biblical testimony is lacking in evidence. Even if it was first person evidence (which I believe it is not) I will not believe it based on any position that you have put forward in this thread.
There is no cherry picking data from the anti-vaxers, it is there for all to see. Plus, if you thought the "vaccination/autism" testimony was cherry picked, I said you could pick another case (look above-said "your choice") but you declined. Another act of desperation. And there are not "limited accounts" from the anti-vaxers, as I said there are thousands if not more. That is not a small sample size. You are making an application that is incorrect, desperation, desperation, desperation.
And then, "not sure what you are asking". One more desperate act of playing ignorant. I asked if you could explain how you came to the "not normally" belief statement regarding "vaccination causes autism" and how this compares to any other testimony for any case of your choice (note: not cherry picking) where you could make a "yes" belief statement. And then compare and contrast the evidence that has you come to a different conclusion for each case. Can you understand this?
Again, if you want to believe in biblical testimony, I don't care. Just stop playing ignorant. I find it irritating because I don't believe that you are ignorant but using it as a ploy. If it continues then I'll be left with no choice but to bring your intelligence into question.
If you can't answer directly then you have no answers and should stop.
It may seem evasive, but I did answer your questions, including about anecdotal evidence concerning cause (in the OP and you where too bothered to hit one button). It may be the rhetoric and your approach, that make me less than forth coming, because I'm not expecting anything more. I've noticed that in many who have chimed in as of late, and commonly attack the person, rather than the arguments or reason. I don't think that it really matters how I answer, so I'm not going to give them much time.
If I have misjudged, then I apologize, and you are welcome to respectfully ask your question again. I'm not going to go back and forth, with posts like the above however.
(October 28, 2016 at 6:22 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Evasive again. This is the act of the desperate.
I'll put it this way, biblical testimony is lacking in evidence. Even if it was first person evidence (which I believe it is not) I will not believe it based on any position that you have put forward in this thread.
There is no cherry picking data from the anti-vaxers, it is there for all to see. Plus, if you thought the "vaccination/autism" testimony was cherry picked, I said you could pick another case (look above-said "your choice") but you declined. Another act of desperation. And there are not "limited accounts" from the anti-vaxers, as I said there are thousands if not more. That is not a small sample size. You are making an application that is incorrect, desperation, desperation, desperation.
And then, "not sure what you are asking". One more desperate act of playing ignorant. I asked if you could explain how you came to the "not normally" belief statement regarding "vaccination causes autism" and how this compares to any other testimony for any case of your choice (note: not cherry picking) where you could make a "yes" belief statement. And then compare and contrast the evidence that has you come to a different conclusion for each case. Can you understand this?
Again, if you want to believe in biblical testimony, I don't care. Just stop playing ignorant. I find it irritating because I don't believe that you are ignorant but using it as a ploy. If it continues then I'll be left with no choice but to bring your intelligence into question.
If you can't answer directly then you have no answers and should stop.
It may seem evasive, but I did answer your questions, including about anecdotal evidence concerning cause (in the OP and you where too bothered to hit one button). It may be the rhetoric and your approach, that make me less than forth coming, because I'm not expecting anything more. I've noticed that in many who have chimed in as of late, and commonly attack the person, rather than the arguments or reason. I don't think that it really matters how I answer, so I'm not going to give them much time.
If I have misjudged, then I apologize, and you are welcome to respectfully ask your question again. I'm not going to go back and forth, with posts like the above however.
Another dodge. So now I'm not playing nice (see the bold). Can you explain why we should not "attack" the obvious dodges or the person making them? And I did question your "not normally/anti-vaxer/autism cause" argument or reason.
Seems that you will only accept testimony that you have a vested interest in and are unwilling to defend your non acceptance of other case/cause testimony that you do not have a vested interest in.
Pathetic.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Scientific evidence is nice, but it has limits which make anecdotal evidence necessary in many circumstances.
- There are some things, like history, which science can't help on. Did Lincoln write the gettysburg address on a train on the back of an envelope? All we can do is collect the testimony for and against the position and make a judgment call.
- There are many things that science doesn't bother to explore. Science can be expensive, and without potential profit or a willing grantor, stuff just doesn't get studied.
- Obtaining science is expensive. Journals typically only give the abstract for free. Most of us aren't going to spend the money and time to really keep up on science. Rather, some people read about science in the popular media or watch some youtube clips and think they're all scientifical. They're not.
If I'm at the gym and see someone in great shape and ask what they eat and what exercises they do, and their answers are in the same ballpark as others I've asked, I don't need scientific studies to tell me that if I do the same things I'll probably improve. Yeah, there's a chance that I happened to talk to several people with really bad habits but who have great genetics and succeed in spite of their bad habits. I'm willing to take that chance.
