Anecdotal Evidence

[Edwardo Piet]

@ LFC

Peaches are tasty.

Just like me! Or part of me!

And thanks, you're awesome

[RoadRunner79]

Ok... can you define the specific circumstances, and justify the reasoning behind the difference?

I said that AT BEST, anecdotal evidence has value in specific circumstances.  I'd say for example if several people who don't have any connection to each other identify a criminal as having a particular tattoo, then the police should probably start looking for a guy with that tattoo.  But even then, you must proceed with caution.

As for reasoning, please understand this.  The bar required for evidence depends on the receiver, not on the person providing the evidence.  There's no golden standard by which you get to announce that others must necessarily accept your word at face value.

Yes... we discussed before about persuasion vs evidence.  And I do disagree.   For instance, I think that a jury should find, based on the evidence, not that the evidence is found based on the jury.  It also follows, that this changes what you are saying, when you say that something is not evidence.   Because now this description is subjective, and based more on you, rather than the thing in question, therefore; it is saying more about you than the object.

[bennyboy]

Yes... we discussed before about persuasion vs evidence.  And I do disagree.   For instance, I think that a jury should find, based on the evidence, not that the evidence is found based on the jury.  It also follows, that this changes what you are saying, when you say that something is not evidence.   Because now this description is subjective, and based more on you, rather than the thing in question, therefore; it is saying more about you than the object.

No, I didn't say that evidence is whatever you want it to be. I said that the listener can set the standard of evidence which they require. In truth, this is a concession to you for the sake of argument-- that SOME people might accept religious testimonials as evidence of God. They might consider the word of respected members of community, like church members, to be reliable enough to take at face value as bringing truth into the light.

But if you want to take evidence that isn't highly convincing-- by which I mean, it is not actual physical evidence-- then you are now necessarily engaged in persuasion. You are attempting to persuade the listener to lower their bar, so that your word may be taken as evidence, rather than as the ramblings of a well-meaning fool at best, and of a manipulative shyster at worst.

[RoadRunner79]

Yes... we discussed before about persuasion vs evidence.  And I do disagree.   For instance, I think that a jury should find, based on the evidence, not that the evidence is found based on the jury.  It also follows, that this changes what you are saying, when you say that something is not evidence.   Because now this description is subjective, and based more on you, rather than the thing in question, therefore; it is saying more about you than the object.

No, I didn't say that evidence is whatever you want it to be. I said that the listener can set the standard of evidence which they require. In truth, this is a concession to you for the sake of argument-- that SOME people might accept religious testimonials as evidence of God. They might consider the word of respected members of community, like church members, to be reliable enough to take at face value as bringing truth into the light.

But if you want to take evidence that isn't highly convincing-- by which I mean, it is not actual physical evidence-- then you are now necessarily engaged in persuasion. You are attempting to persuade the listener to lower their bar, so that your word may be taken as evidence, rather than as the ramblings of a well-meaning fool at best, and of a manipulative shyster at worst.

An I can apply this to anything which you do not provide actual physical evidence....correct?

If so... why do people call me names, and attack my character, when I hold them to the same standards

[bennyboy]

An I can apply this to anything which you do not provide actual physical evidence....correct?

If so... why do people call me names, and attack my character, when I hold them to the same standards

You are free to believe, or disbelieve, based on any standard you want.

I'm not sure about your character. I can only say based on my own idea-- that it seems to me your interest in the subject of evidence is probably that you want to lower the standard of evidence people hold with regard to religious claims, so that they will accept testimony as evidence of God.

We've given examples of testimony, for example that of aliens or of other religions, that YOU wouldn't accept. So unless you are prepared to explain how you differentiate between your claims and those of other religions, then I'm not sure this entire process of establishing testimony as evidence helps you.

Here's my testimony-- I've looked for God and found nothing. Does that count as evidence that God doesn't exist in your view?

[RoadRunner79]

Are you saying that testimony is limited to a courtroom?

Um, No.  Where did you get that from what I said?

I assumed from your response, that the limitation you proposed concerning scientific testimony to a courtroom came from the word science.  Did I make a mistake? Also, I think you should understand, the reason I am calling it testimony, is that it matches the description of testimony.   Since A=A (law of identity), then even if not commonly used, I think it applies; along with all the characteristics you ascribe to testimony.

---

The definition says that it is especially used in a court, but not that it's use is limited to that.   The root simply means "a witness"

Again...okay.  I fail to see how that particular semantic is relevant here...?  As I said before, "scientific testimony" as given in a court room (or a karaoke bar, if that appeases you) is NOT the same thing as trying to equate a peer-reviewed research study to "testimony", simply because you didn't personally observe the scientists perform their research.  THAT is a false equivalency, as has been pointed out to you several times by several people.  It was also pointed out to you in The Real Religion thread.  It was a fallacy then, and it's still a fallacy now.

Any good scientist proffering "scientific testimony" on the stand or anywhere else, should have the full weight of robust, repeatable, verifiable evidence behind him in support of the very thing he is testifying to.  That's the whole point, you know.  Not so much for someone testifying to a supernatural claim though, huh?

It appears to me, that you are venturing into scientism.... do you think that science is the only way of gaining knowledge?  Or that if science doesn't explain something; that it didn't happen?

That really wasn't the purpose of this thread though, was it?  Not as stated by you, at least.  If you'd like to discuss epistemology, maybe start a new thread for that specific subject.  My understanding was that you wanted to discuss the usefulness and/or credibility of testimony as it applies to determining the likelihood of any particular claim being true.  Yes...?

This seems irrational to me.  Also I think that you are making a lot of assumptions, and reading into in the "you seem to want to say" statement.  We haven't gotten to rejecting anything yet, except for I think that rejecting by begging the question is bad.  I have said, a number of times, that accepting testimony as evidence, doesn't mean that you do not question things.   I am guessing, that those who use "known to be possible" of a criteria, do not just hand over their information to that Prince in the Middle East, that wants to send them money (because it is possible)

Okay, RR.  This could go on for an eternity if you don't fess up to where you want this thread to go.  Yes, testimony can be appropriately used as supporting evidence under certain circumstances.  We've all agreed to that point at least once here.  The question is, where are you going to go from there, and why?  If you refuse to take a positive position or offer a positive argument for the damn subject that you wanted to discuss, then frankly I'm done.  

Do you think atheists are irrational for dismissing supernatural bible claims?  Do you think I'm being irrational for NOT accepting the claim that a dead guy came back to life after three days, solely on the basis of stories from a 2,000 year old book?  Just say so, man.  

Then, once you've told us what you really think, you may begin to build your positive case for why we should accept that particular claim as likely to be true.  Testimony and all.  

Stop making me go 'round and 'round on the semantics carousel, or I'm just gonna jump off and be done with you.

---

I do understand that these are your starting assumptions.   I am trying to understand how you justify them.  That is the point of the thread, that you keep asking for, and I keep answering.   I have made (perhaps hastely) some comments, which could be assumptions of my own, concerning your reasoning.   So far I haven't gotten much (besides people lie, and they make mistakes). Both of which can also apply to testimony about science (I don't think these are very good criteria).   Now I do think, that we can test our witnesses, and try to avoid contamination of the evidence.  Someone trying to decieve with false evidence is always difficult, but I believe that can be detected too (especially by corraborating evidence).  However we would need to establish testimony as evidence first, before we start to discuss how to handle it.  We can move on, to my position if you like.  But I will be assuming that my starting observation that your rules are ad hoc, begging the question, and shifting the goal posts where correct, and I don't think that we will get very far.

A few months ago, on another blog I frequent, there was a discussion in that it was brought up that the interlocutors (atheists in this case) had a problem with abstract thinking.   It was questioned, if this was a defeciency, that seemed to be attracted to this worldview, if it was taught, or just group think.   Another offered another option, that many just don't take religion very seriously, and thus their arguements reflect that (lack of thought).  I can see both, but I think in this thread the abstract thinking theory seems apparent.   It would explain the difficulty in reasoning through the principles, why answers seem to not even register and questions asked multiple times.  It would also address the difficulty in applying the principles equally, or offering a justified qualification for the difference that should be observed.  

I do realize, that I am different in this area, and very abstract in my thinking.  I have noticed this at work, and the way many approach a problem.... There is a difference in the way people think.  I don't say this to demean anyone, but I do think that some abstract thinking is called for, and that it may help you understand me.

[RoadRunner79]

An I can apply this to anything which you do not provide actual physical evidence....correct?

If so... why do people call me names, and attack my character, when I hold them to the same standards

You are free to believe, or disbelieve, based on any standard you want.

I'm not sure about your character.  I can only say based on my own idea-- that it seems to me your interest in the subject of evidence is probably that you want to lower the standard of evidence people hold with regard to religious claims, so that they will accept testimony as evidence of God.

Who is it; who keeps bringing religion and God into the discussion? I am trying to establish and discuss the general principles involved with the epistemology of testimony. It would seem to follow, that we need to do this, before either applying them to, or discussing and justifying any special distinctions that are made towards the subject of religious testimony. So far, I have been discussing the general principles alone, that apply to everything that is equal with the definition of testimony. Perhaps a fear of letting a divine foot in the door, is what is making discussion difficult.

We've given examples of testimony, for example that of aliens or of other religions, that YOU wouldn't accept.  So unless you are prepared to explain how you differentiate between your claims and those of other religions, then I'm not sure this entire process of establishing testimony as evidence helps you.

I think that you are making assumptions about what I would or would not accept. I also notice, that most of the examples I have seen are rather poor examples of testimony to best suit what you are trying to argue. "I've seen a ghost" is not very good as evidence. It's vague, leaves much to the imagination, and is more of a claim, than an account of what occurred. A very detailed account of what you saw, when, and where with other corroborating evidence (including testimony), is much better.

[bennyboy]

Who is it; who keeps bringing religion and God into the discussion?   I am trying to establish and discuss the general principles involved with the epistemology of testimony.   It would seem to follow, that we need to do this, before either applying them to, or discussing and justifying any special distinctions that are made towards the subject of religious testimony.  So far, I have been discussing the general principles alone, that apply to everything that is equal with the definition of testimony.   Perhaps a fear of letting a divine foot in the door, is what is making discussion difficult.

Nobody I know is this fascinated with establishing the validity of anecdotal evidence as you are. Given that you are Christian, I think it's not an unreasonable supposition that you have a motive-- the evidence you have at hand is of a type that is used only in special circumstances.

That being said, I'd like to float a new idea-- that evidence and the idea it is more acceptable if it is of like kind. If I'm talking about what happened in my day, that's a narrative, and an anecdote matches fine. People don't really care if the cupcake you ate was the "best thing I ever ate!" because it's all part of that narrative.

If you're talking science, an anecdote has very little import, unless you're talking about the narrative-- dude, I dropped my vial, and I discovered a new polymer by accident. I'll accept the story as a narrative, but I won't believe that there's a new polymer unless I can see it.

[RoadRunner79]

Who is it; who keeps bringing religion and God into the discussion?   I am trying to establish and discuss the general principles involved with the epistemology of testimony.   It would seem to follow, that we need to do this, before either applying them to, or discussing and justifying any special distinctions that are made towards the subject of religious testimony.  So far, I have been discussing the general principles alone, that apply to everything that is equal with the definition of testimony.   Perhaps a fear of letting a divine foot in the door, is what is making discussion difficult.

Nobody I know is this fascinated with establishing the validity of anecdotal evidence as you are.  Given that you are Christian, I think it's not an unreasonable supposition that you have a motive-- the evidence you have at hand is of a type that is used only in special circumstances.

Just to be clear, I am really discussing testimony as evidence.  To my understanding anecdotal carries a nuance of being short, and I normally would not consider that very good evidence.  However it seems to be equivocated here (and I have stated why I thought that it was).  Also given your position, I could also assume motive... however I'm not really concerned with your motives, but the reasons you give as to why?  Also you may consider, that my motive is that I believe this to be a bad argument (ad hoc, begging the question, and shifting the goal posts),  and I'm giving you a chance to rationalize and explain your view.

That being said, I'd like to float a new idea-- that evidence and the idea it is more acceptable if it is of like kind.  If I'm talking about what happened in my day, that's a narrative, and an anecdote matches fine.  People don't really care if the cupcake you ate was the "best thing I ever ate!" because it's all part of that narrative.

If you're talking science, an anecdote has very little import, unless you're talking about the narrative-- dude, I dropped my vial, and I discovered a new polymer by accident.  I'll accept the story as a narrative, but I won't believe that there's a new polymer unless I can see it.

So are you saying; that I shouldn't believe what scientists tell me, unless I can see it for my self?   That leaves a lot open, and makes the world a much smaller place.   Should I also not believe that Sweden exists, until I can verify it personally?  What if a number of scientists are reporting that they have verified the new polymer?  

I think that this new idea, needs some more thought.   As is, those that deny the moon landing, or the holocaust are not that irrational.

[The Grand Nudger]

So are you saying; that I shouldn't believe what scientists tell me, unless I can see it for my self?

Ding ding ding ding ding.  In case you didn't know this, science is -built- on this very statement.  That's what demonstration, replication, and peer review are all about.  Science does not ask for or require -anyone's- belief. If you think that science is "just what some scientists told me" then you're out there on the deep end. Realizing this won;t pull you back from the "testimony" song and dance, ofc, you'll just find another way to keep bullshitting us and yourself...because you just can't handle the fact that your silly little beliefs are not the same thing, that they're not even on the same level.

Anecdote starts and stop with " I heard some guy tell my brother about a mugging"....and so does your "testimony".