Anecdotal Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

You think questioning the possibility of police shootings being real is doing well?

Do you think there's a possibility that he's rhetorically using exaggeration to make a point?

Since our particular interaction was about Bayesian probability, that would only make his statement more obtuse.

[The Grand Nudger]

What point might that be, in your estimation, Alpha?

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, your perception is that RR is do well?

Yes, and the lol is another giveaway.

He's making the point that much of what we think we know comes from anecdotal evidence, and that's true. It's so obvious that his opponents are asserting bad definitions to try to salvage their points.

So...I can't laugh at someone and also make a valid point? That's a new one to me, thank you!

LOL

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, I missed that one.  So....do you think that the acceptance of the notion that police kill innocent people is one of the things that people believe based upon anecdote, then, Alpha?  Because...if what you described is the point, and this isn't an example of that...he's not doing very well after all, and you're just stirring shit because you have nothing to say.

What kind of conversation do -you- want to have, Alpha?

[LadyForCamus]

You think questioning the possibility of police shootings being real is doing well?

Do you think there's a possibility that he's rhetorically using exaggeration to make a point?

Do you think there is a possibility that you do not understand the difference between exaggeration and equivocation?

[robvalue]

I think the essential point has been lost in the shuffle.

At best, anecdotes tell you what someone believes happened. It can never tell you what actually happened, if anything. And questioning the latter is not the same as questioning the former. I'll happily accept that most people believe stories they tell me.

[robvalue]

Also, when someone informally says, "That didn't happen" (with regard to a suspicious sounding anecdote), what they probably mean is that there is no good reason to believe it did happen. Sceptics have no need to categorically proclaim anecdotes false. Simply estimating their probability based on experience, reason and evidence is enough.

[RoadRunner79]

Perhaps, but I am awaiting evidence.  I have yet to see a scientific peer reviewed and repeatable experiment which testifies to such.   But you also bring up another bad and related argument with the video. If I believed those video's, then wouldn't I also be required to believe the videos depicting Harry Potter, as evidence?

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).... 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.

But, it's a moot point with you anyhow, because we all know your next question will be, "How do we KNOW the scientists actually did the research?  Did you see them performing the tests?!"   

How can you NOT see how utterly vapid, desperate, and irrational such a question is, RR?

You are catching on.... you can repeat it, next goal is understanding.

[RoadRunner79]

28 pages and I still don't even get what point is being argued for. No one is stopping people believing anecdotes. No one has to even defend why they believe something if they don't want to. So what is this about? If there was a category for "least apparent position" I would vote for RR in a heartbeat.

Go back to the op..... this was mostly an inquisitive venture.

[RoadRunner79]

Have you seen a cop? Have you seen a gun? Do you know any laws of biology, chemistry, physics, or psychology that would prevent a cop from shooting an innocent unarmed person?

You don't actually have to see the shooting to know it's possible. But you DO have to be familiar with the existence of the elements involved to know it's possible. The existence of supernatural beings is simply not being held to a different standard than the existence of unjustified police shootings.

If you were an alien unfamiliar with any of the elements of an unjustified police shooting, you would be justified in asking for evidence of the elements involved in such a shooting. I could take you to a shooting range and teach you about guns. I could introduce you to police officers. I could provide copious evidence that humans are fallible and susceptible to bias, corruption, errors of judgment, and panic. And I could provide the footage and details of investigations to close the deal; but that last thing should not at that point be necessary to establish that such a thing is possible, the prior elements establish that.

You're trying to create a false equivalence between being open to accepting reports of something we didn't see personally but know all the elements that would make it possible; and being open to reports of something that hasn't had its possibility established in the first place. We're the aliens in the latter scenario, and it's reasonable to expect you to do the equivalent of taking us to the shooting range and demonstrating human fallibility before we even entertain the possibility that your report might be true and means what you think it does.

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!