Anecdotal Evidence

[downbeatplumb]

Its certainly reportable by the main stream media and it does conform to what the women said he did.

Actually it was reported before women made claims.

I don't know about armadillos and biscuits. How about a straight answer? If someone says I have sexually assaulted women is that evidence that he has sexually assaulted women? Not conclusive proof, but evidence?

It is not in itself evidence but it can indicate that something will need closer investigation.

"There is an elephant in my kitchen" is an anecdote that would require backing up. going there and finding an elephant sized hole in the wall, elephant dung on the floor and most damningly, foot prints in the margarine, would be evidence.

[bennyboy]

Actually it was reported before women made claims.

I don't know about armadillos and biscuits. How about a straight answer? If someone says I have sexually assaulted women is that evidence that he has sexually assaulted women? Not conclusive proof, but evidence?

It is not in itself evidence but it can indicate that something will need closer investigation.

"There is an elephant in my kitchen" is an anecdote that would require backing up. going there and finding an elephant sized hole in the wall, elephant dung on the floor and most damningly, foot prints in the margarine, would be evidence.

If that weren't true, then any 3 of my ex girlfriends could get together, make up a rape story, and watch the police march me to prison.

And, to be truthful, that HAS happened these days: girl accuses boy, boy gets thrown out of school without evidence or even a chance to explain or defend himself.

[John V]

People make false confessions.  No, it's not evidence, because it makes nothing -evident-.

And this is the problem with the position that anecdotes are in no way evidence. While people do make false claims, we all know that we found it more likely that Trump had done such things after the tape came out than before.

[John V]

It's no surprise to me that we have a Christian here that doesn't know what constitutes evidence.

Claims are not evidence for said claims. Anecdotes themselves are not evidence.

Without induction there is no evidence. Period.

Like beauty, what constitutes evidence is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not dictating what people should accept as evidence, as you seem to be doing. I'm discussing what people actually do consider as evidence in practical application. 

Are accounts that Trump fondled women without their consent evidence absent corroborating physical evidence? Some people think yes, with high weight. Some think yes, but with low weight. Some say no. Personally I'm in the middle group, but I'm not going to tell the others that they just don't know what evidence is.

[John V]

It is not in itself evidence but it can indicate that something will need closer investigation.

That's a dodge. It's no different from saying, Yes, it's evidence, but it's inconclusive on its own.

[abaris]

"There is an elephant in my kitchen" is an anecdote that would require backing up. going there and finding an elephant sized hole in the wall, elephant dung on the floor and most damningly, foot prints in the margarine, would be evidence.

Personally I think the dung part is more damning than the footprints, since they can only be partials without the margarine no longer existing. But that's just me.

[Edwardo Piet]

Like beauty, what constitutes evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

The former is subjective and the latter is objective.

Evidence is inductive. Proof is deductive. Both of those are objective. Beauty is subjective.

Again, I'm hardly surprised that a Christian doesn't know what evidence is.

[John V]

The former is subjective and the latter is objective.

Evidence is inductive. Proof is deductive. Both of those are objective. Beauty is subjective.

Incorrect. What constitutes evidence is subjective to some extent. That's why trials have juries. If evidence were purely objective, there would be no need for juries. You could just have some court clerk go down the objective evidence checklist.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're conflating ontological and epistemic subjectivity.

People/subjects give their anecdotes and then inductive reasoning is applied to give epistemically objective evidence. They are subjects with subjectivity but that doesn't make their knowledge subjective... there's no such thing as subjective knowledge. Evidence is relative and non-absolute inductive knowledge but it isn't subjective... it merely stems from people's subjectivity, their subjectivity which objectively exists ontologically and is irrelevant to the epistemic objectivity of the resulting evidence.

Without the inductive reasoning there is no evidence. The fact people are subjects and have subjectivity is irrelevant to the epistemic objectivity of the inductive logic used to create the evidence. The anecdotes themselves aren't evidence at all, they're just anecdotes. As I already explained it's the way the stories match each other and form a bigger picture, and induction is used to show that the likeliest explanation is that the anecdotes are true, that is the evidence. The anecdotes themselves are not evidence. The claims and stories themselves aren't evidence for the claims and stories themselves, that's ridiculous and circular.

[The Grand Nudger]

People make false confessions.  No, it's not evidence, because it makes nothing -evident-.

And this is the problem with the position that anecdotes are in no way evidence. While people do make false claims, we all know that we found it more likely that Trump had done such things after the tape came out than before.

A tape isn't anecdotal, firstly.  It isn't a story people tell, relying on subjective experience and faulty memories thereof..so you're already barking up the wrong tree.  This isn't an issue of someone saying they remember hearing trump say that he grabbed women by the pussy. -That- would be an anecdote. He said it, it's on tape, it's empirical, that much is evident......?

While some people (and those are the people a prosecutor would look for as jurors) might see that tape as a damning indictment of Trump /w regards to some specific allegation of sexual assualt - it isn't.  It's just a convenient way to speak to character...which is generally what's put on trial before a jury in the absence of -actual- evidence, for better or for worse. It only takes a word from a defense attorney to remind the jury that they don;t have to like the defendant.....maybe he;s a shitty person, and the tape definitely speaks to that, on some level...but he wouldn;t be on trial for being a shitty person who says objectionable things. That's not a valid charge.

What you may find more likely hardly speaks to whether or not anecdotes are useful, or evidence..though I'm not sure what pussygate has to do with either in context.