Anecdotal Evidence

[Whateverist]

Okay let's not use that meaning.  Let's use "anecdote" as equivalent to "personal testimonial."  Do you believe that the testimonials of Christians, including historical early Christians, can be used as evidence for God?

Yes... I do

Well sure. Do you think a Ouija board can be used as evidence for God? I'm sure some people do. A good horoscope would probably seal the deal for other people. The operative word in that question is "can". Can it be used for evidence? Yes, obviously even the message in a fortune cookie can be used as evidence.

The real question is should it count as evidence for a neutral, half-way intelligent person who is oriented toward knowing the truth? The answer in that case is obviously hell no.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I am willing to compromise.  I can believe that you all are either lying, crazy or delusional, until you provide empirical evidence to me and generally pretend to be hyper-skeptical.  Should make the next thread about a police officer involved shooting fairly interesting (although I may gain some haters).  I'll start by rejecting your claim about testimony and the way reality really works.

I know you've had Bayesian logic explained to you before, RR. Everything involved in a reported police shooting is incomparably more plausible than a claim of the supernatural, paranormal, or cryptids because such an incident is entirely composed of things that we KNOW exist and KNOW can happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be reasonably skeptical, we should be reasonably skeptical of everything, especially in a world where lots of people just make stuff up to stir the pot...but Bayesian logic determines what level of skepticism is reasonable, and you use it for everything else but your religion.

[John V]

Okay let's not use that meaning.  Let's use "anecdote" as equivalent to "personal testimonial."  Do you believe that the testimonials of Christians, including historical early Christians, can be used as evidence for God?

Considering that just about every believer in the Christian God came to believe based largely on testimony of other Christians and/or the Bible, the answer is obviously yes, personal testimony can be used as evidence for God.

[bennyboy]

Okay let's not use that meaning.  Let's use "anecdote" as equivalent to "personal testimonial."  Do you believe that the testimonials of Christians, including historical early Christians, can be used as evidence for God?

Considering that just about every believer in the Christian God came to believe based largely on testimony of other Christians and/or the Bible, the answer is obviously yes, personal testimony can be used as evidence for God.

I don't think that's true, actually.  I think most people who believe in the Christian God believe for one of three reasons:
1)  They are raised in Christian families, and kids believe what they are told is true, with little or no ability to discern truth.
2)  Some people are shocked (for example by the death of a loved one), such that their world view is damaged, putting them in an "open" state in which they aren't sure what's true, and therefore rely on the truth judgments of others.
3)  Some people consciously choose to suspend disbelief in a kind of spiritual suicide-- "I hate myself and my life, and I want to be part of something that is good."  Examples would be prison convicts.

In my opinion, (1) is quite natural, (3) is very likely beneficial.  If an inmate finds solace in Jesus, and changes from a thug to a community leader, I couldn't care less if the Jesus and God he believes in are real.  (2) is fairly natural but a bit predatory.  Lonely old ladies are led to church by well-meaning churchgoers in the hope of comfort, and too many end up giving all their money to Creflo Dollar.

My point is that I don't think there's really anyone who is persuaded by the particular quality of evidence of either the Bible or its believers.  I think the individual arrives at a state in which they suspend their disbelief.  Now, be careful to note that I'm not saying the Bible is necessarily wrong, or that the religion is necessarily wrong-- I'm just saying that it is not through the acceptance of the weight of evidence by which ANY Christian becomes so.

My primary evidence for this is simple-- that in other geographic regions, children, grieving widows, or reformed criminals end up believing in Islam, or Hinduism or whatever.  So it's not the religion itself which reaches out to sensible listeners, but rather eager listeners who absorb the religion that first appeals to them.

[Ravenshire]

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?

Well, I'll summarize what the video points out about the collapse of the second tower. Most people were glued to the coverage of the 9/11 attacks and will swear (myself included) seeing the second tower collapse an hour or two after the first. It is, with the exception of some of the people living in and around Manhattan, an impossibility. There was no footage broadcast of the second collapse until the next day. Millions upon millions of people believe, very clearly, something that could not have happened. This is just one of the weaknesses of testimonial evidence. I urge you to watch the video. It's truly frightening what can get someone convicted.

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).

This quote seems that you believe that myself and the others here have never taken a real look at the evidences for god(s). I can't speak for everyone, but I think I speak for most that we have. Most of us were believers at some point (or at least wanted very badly to believe) but the evidence simply never bore out the claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

The weight of "anecdotal evidence" for alien abductions is much greater and more recent than the weight of evidence for the events of the NT.  You see, we can ask the person who was ostensibly there at the abduction, and hear their testimony firsthand, whereas it's hard to dredge up a witness to the crucifixion. That and we do, you know...have pictures of ufos.....

 I think that you're being dishonest with yourself, about both anecdotal evidence, and how you handle it. If you'd handled the anecdotes of alien abduction the same way you handle the relatively weaker nt anecdote...one wonders why you aren;t out there proclaiming the truth of invaders from alpha centauri, as you do for the truth of the zombie jew. That you aren't tell us that, no matter what you might -say- here, in service of your insipid arguments regarding anecdote, you actually -do- know better, even if you don't know -why- you know better.

[Ravenshire]

I'm not really sure, though, what life decisions you could be referring to.  Home, job, spouse, children?  I didn't make any of these decisions based upon anecdotal evidence...that would be foolish and irresponsible, at best.

How did you make them? It could just be that I'm using "anecdotal evidence" more broadly than you are. It's very common to talk to friends in different areas before deciding where to buy a home, or to talk to people in different fields before choosing a college major or a job, etc. I don't see that doing so is "foolish and irresponsible."

You're asking for, and receiving, testimony, not anecdotes. Anecdotes, while occasionally useful for making a moral point or amusing your coworkers, are in no way, shape or form evidence of anything.

anecdote:
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

testimony:
1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.
2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
3. open declaration or profession, as of faith.
4. Usually, testimonies. the precepts of God.
5. the Decalogue as inscribed on the two tables of the law, or the ark in which the tables were kept. Ex. 16:34; 25:16.
6. Archaic. a declaration of disapproval; protest.


It's folks like you, who conflate the two terms and treat them as if they're equal, that leads to the confusion found in this thread.

There's no such thing as anecdotal evidence, period. Testimony, despite it's flaws and failures, can be accepted as evidence. Anecdotes cannot.

"Don't buy a house in this neighborhood." or "Go to this college, I've heard it's really good for people studying that." are examples of testimony, even if one is hearsay, not anecdotes.

[Ravenshire]

To be fair Donald Trump has said that he did those things.

Is that evidence that he did?

Confessions are the holy grail of testimonial evidence in criminal court, assuming they haven't been coerced.

[RoadRunner79]

As I said, you need to define what you mean, by anecdote.   Are we using a dictionary version of the word, or the one made up here?

Also, what do you qualify by important life decision?

WTF?  You're the one who said you based pretty much all of you important life decisions on anecdote (that weren't based on firsthand experience, ofc...lol), you must have your own understanding of the term in mind, at least.  It's not really up to me to decide what qualifies as an important life decision for you...now is it?  

This might be the quickest dive into semantic evasion I've seen.

How about do not eat those red berries in the woods.

[RoadRunner79]

I am willing to compromise.  I can believe that you all are either lying, crazy or delusional, until you provide empirical evidence to me and generally pretend to be hyper-skeptical.  Should make the next thread about a police officer involved shooting fairly interesting (although I may gain some haters).  I'll start by rejecting your claim about testimony and the way reality really works.

I know you've had Bayesian logic explained to you before, RR. Everything involved in a reported police shooting is incomparably more plausible than a claim of the supernatural, paranormal, or cryptids because such an incident is entirely composed of things that we KNOW exist and KNOW can happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be reasonably skeptical, we should be reasonably skeptical of everything, especially in a world where lots of people just make stuff up to stir the pot...but Bayesian logic determines what level of skepticism is reasonable, and you use it for everything else but your religion.

I am skeptical about your claim of Bayesian logic.  It may be able to tell you what you are more likely to see today, or given no other information (or conflicting accounts), what someone else was more likely to have seen.  However it doesn't follow, that because something is more common, that it more likely occurred vs the less common option, especially when there is evidence for the latter.  

Also, please support you claim, that I use it for everything else but my religion.