Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, testimony is not firm evidence. However, in a lot of cases, I'll accept it. Not all claims are equal. Some are mundane and/or unimportant. For those, I'll accept a minimal level of evidence. As they get more unusual or important, I'll require more evidence.

I've said this many times, but scientific theories represent something anyone can falsify, without requiring any specific information. So I'm not just believing the people who developed the theory, I'm aware of the fact that no one has falsified it. And there will always be people desperately trying to falsify theories. If it's surviving worldwide scrutiny, then that gives me a massive level of confidence. The only other scenario is that people who falsify it, anywhere in the world, are being silenced before they can get their stuff out on the internet. If I don't believe these theories, I wouldn't be able to believe anything. They are more reliable, in my opinion, than what I see with my own eyes, because of the level of scrutiny they have gone through. Of course, I think them through and see if they make sense to me. And generally they do, if I can understand them. They align with reality.

So, then the principle, here appears to be, that the claim is falsifiable, others are able to test it and report against it, and it has held up to scrutiny. Here I would agree in regards to testimony or non personal experiences. I would differ in that I may not always understand, or depending on the evidence, that I may need to change my understanding. Now it would depend on how well I observed something, but I don't doubt my own observations that much (although I don't discount others either). I look at all the information, and the strengths and weaknesses. However even science allows for anomolies, and I don't believe that evidence should be discarded, because it doesn't fit.

Also, interesting though they are, most scientific theories don't impact my life in any way. If I believe them but they turn out to be wrong, I shrug my shoulders. I don't base my (moral) actions on them. So I don't need to go and personally verify every single one, because I don't care enough. People are doing that for me, all over the world. I have other stuff to do.

So no, science is not just the testimony of a bunch of people. Look at everything around you, developed by science. If you think all that is based on nothing more than the say-so of a few people, I don't know what I can tell you. Science is what works, and it does. Why you want to try and equate science with testimony, I don't know. I can only think you don't know much about how science really works. That's an observation, not an insult.

What point you're even trying to make, I still don't know.

I don't equate science and testimony (as has been stated before). Although I would disagree with a definition of science as "what works". Now if the sharing of knowledge found through the scientific method equals the definition of testimony, then I would say that according to the law of identity, that the principles or characteristics of testimony, then also apply. I'm not really discussing or disputing the scientific method, so I don't think that your observation or assumption apply to what you think I know (as well, you don't understand the argument). I also think it is further demonstration of difficulty in abstract thinking, and applying the principles apart from the subject at hand, and justifying methods.

[robvalue]

Okay. Thanks for the discussion. I'm afraid I still don't know what point you're trying to make, and I'm going to have to give up trying at this point.

[RoadRunner79]

Okay. Thanks for the discussion. I'm afraid I still don't know what point you're trying to make, and I'm going to have to give up trying at this point.

Ok... next time then... take care!

[bennyboy]

I would agree that we may be willing to make more assumptions or concessions, for a number of reasons.  However, I don't think that others are required or expected to make the same allowances, for lack of reasonable evidence. I believe that what is reasonable in one case, is reasonable in a similar case.  I am also open to new ideas, and believe that we should look at the evidence.  Perhaps it is just me, but I think that sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring evidence that doesn't conform to your a priori beliefs is a good epistemology.

Do you think that the reason I'm not Christian is that I ignore evidence?

The fact is that very many people here were once Christian. In my case, I lived in poverty, read the Bible several hours each day, had Revelations-type dreams, and made inquiries into joining a monastery. But in the end, I looked around at the world, and then at the world as described by the Christian dogma, and I decided that the religion was severely at odds with reality.

Well your results seem to be better than the results of the poll of Scientists who responded  in the Journal Nature I cited. But it probably depends on what you are doing.  And I do think that the method of science has produced a number of great things.  

It depends what kind of science you're doing. You are thinking of science as a coherent institution. You say "Scientists" but I think you are really thinking of "Scientism"-ists. Let's make this clear-- Science is NOT a world view, and has no dogma, other than a refined method of inquiry investigation. Though not all would agree, I think I can make a strong claim that science is not at odds with religion at all, and does not even require a material world view.

You'll have to describe exactly what science the pollsters are talking about, or your citation doesn't really shed much light on your position. I can think of one branch of science which very clearly is NOT reproducible and cannot be experimented on: the idea of the multiverse.

My experience differs, and I find that if I take a presuppositional approach, that a large number of things are better explained through theism.   However I fail to see, what this has to do with testimony.   In fact this seems to be one of a number of things, which you offer through testimony in this post, which you seem to be giving as justification or reason for your beliefs (evidence).  I find this somewhat self defeating.

Really? You are unconvinced by what you see as my own testimony, and so you find this self-defeating of the idea that testimony is a poor source of evidence?

If you want to claim hypocrisy, then you've completely accepted my position: one man's "testimony" is another man's BS.

[RoadRunner79]

I would agree that we may be willing to make more assumptions or concessions, for a number of reasons.  However, I don't think that others are required or expected to make the same allowances, for lack of reasonable evidence. I believe that what is reasonable in one case, is reasonable in a similar case.  I am also open to new ideas, and believe that we should look at the evidence.  Perhaps it is just me, but I think that sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring evidence that doesn't conform to your a priori beliefs is a good epistemology.

Do you think that the reason I'm not Christian is that I ignore evidence?

The fact is that very many people here were once Christian.  In my case, I lived in poverty, read the Bible several hours each day, had Revelations-type dreams, and made inquiries into joining a monastery.  But in the end, I looked around at the world, and then at the world as described by the Christian dogma, and I decided that the religion was severely at odds with reality.

I don't know why you are not a Christian, it may have nothing to do with evidence.  I do think that the excuse of flat out denying testimony however isn't very consistent or well thought out.
Also, if you are defining evidence, as you have previously (as what persuedes you), then I don't think the statement even makes since.  That is an issue I have with that definition, you can't ignore evidence, because it is subjective.

Well your results seem to be better than the results of the poll of Scientists who responded  in the Journal Nature I cited. But it probably depends on what you are doing.  And I do think that the method of science has produced a number of great things.  

It depends what kind of science you're doing.  You are thinking of science as a coherent institution.  You say "Scientists" but I think you are really thinking of "Scientism"-ists.  Let's make this clear-- Science is NOT a world view, and has no dogma, other than a refined method of inquiry investigation.  Though not all would agree, I think I can make a strong claim that science is not at odds with religion at all, and does not even require a material world view.

You'll have to describe exactly what science the pollsters are talking about, or your citation doesn't really shed much light on your position.  I can think of one branch of science which very clearly is NOT reproducible and cannot be experimented on: the idea of the multiverse.

It was a poll of subscribers to the journal, and to be fair; I got the feeling, that it was a volunteer response, so those who have had issues, or think that there is an issue, may have been more likely to complete the survey.  It included scientist reporting their experiences, and involved difficulties in repeating peer reviewed experiments.  Some of the social sciences, or psychology, I don't think are that surprising, but the natural sciences, such as physics, and chemistry where.  I would agree, that science and religion are not adversarial.  I also agree, that not all areas of science are directly repeatable.  I may quibble on calling the multiverse science, but there are a number of investigative sciences, which are purely inferential such as archeology, where you are looking at the evidence, and  making a determination to the best conclusion.

My experience differs, and I find that if I take a presuppositional approach, that a large number of things are better explained through theism.   However I fail to see, what this has to do with testimony.   In fact this seems to be one of a number of things, which you offer through testimony in this post, which you seem to be giving as justification or reason for your beliefs (evidence).  I find this somewhat self defeating.

Really?  You are unconvinced by what you see as my own testimony, and so you find this self-defeating of the idea that testimony is a poor source of evidence?

If you want to claim hypocrisy, then you've completely accepted my position: one man's "testimony" is another man's BS.

I think that you misunderstand.  I don't just dismiss your testimony.   And I try to follow a principle of charity, which means that I don't immediately second guess it, or question your motivations without reason.  I think we are again running into a difficulty in definition again.  Just because I am not convinced, does not mean that mean that it is not evidence.  The content (of which yours was lacking detail) however does make a difference.

So would you like to address, that you are offering testimony as evidence?

[Full Circle]

If one person reports something odd, it's an anecdote. If 1,000 people report something odd, it's qualitative evidence.

Like Fatima and the “dancing, zig-zagging” Sun?

Sometimes when 1,000 people report something odd it is simply mass hallucination and not qualitative evidence.

---

Sorry if I’m covering over trodden ground here but I always thought that anecdotal evidence was simply one person’s observation. I suppose more than one person can share in the anecdote and even when many do it should be taken with a grain of salt until scientifically tested.

For instance the Egyptians noticed that when the Crocodiles came up the Nile River during the year so would the flooding of the low lying areas and planting season was at hand. They surmised that the Crocodiles brought the floods and therefore they were regarded as gods. Ass-backwards but hey, unexamined anecdotal evidence may sound legitimate on the surface and still be completely wrong.

[bennyboy]

I don't know why you are not a Christian, it may have nothing to do with evidence.  I do think that the excuse of flat out denying testimony however isn't very consistent or well thought out.
Also, if you are defining evidence, as you have previously (as what persuedes you), then I don't think the statement even makes since.  That is an issue I have with that definition, you can't ignore evidence, because it is subjective.

I would say that the best evidence we have of Christian beliefs is the Bible, and I find it inconsistent and hostile.

It was a poll of subscribers to the journal, and to be fair; I got the feeling, that it was a volunteer response, so those who have had issues, or think that there is an issue, may have been more likely to complete the survey.  It included scientist reporting their experiences, and involved difficulties in repeating peer reviewed experiments.  Some of the social sciences, or psychology, I don't think are that surprising, but the natural sciences, such as physics, and chemistry where.  I would agree, that science and religion are not adversarial.  I also agree, that not all areas of science are directly repeatable.  I may quibble on calling the multiverse science, but there are a number of investigative sciences, which are purely inferential such as archeology, where you are looking at the evidence, and  making a determination to the best conclusion.

The thing about archeology is that it is really said that "this is so," as religions say. This is important to me-- the more confidently you make your claims, the greater your reason for confidence should be. After that, the next best evidence, it seems to me, is subjective revelation-- but it is not specific only to the Christian religion. Therefore, I'd say that religious experiences are not of religion, but of human nature, and that they cannot therefore serve as evidence in favor of this or that religious tradition. This, I think, has been your problem throughout this discussion-- you want to include religious testimony in our consideration of what is true, but surely you would not accept Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan accounts as evidence in favor of the actual existence of Krsna, an enlightened Buddha, or Thor.

I think that you misunderstand.  I don't just dismiss your testimony.   And I try to follow a principle of charity, which means that I don't immediately second guess it, or question your motivations without reason.  I think we are again running into a difficulty in definition again.  Just because I am not convinced, does not mean that mean that it is not evidence.  The content (of which yours was lacking detail) however does make a difference.

So would you like to address, that you are offering testimony as evidence?

Your post is to far after the one you're responding to. I don't really understand what you are saying right now.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If one person reports something odd, it's an anecdote. If 1,000 people report something odd, it's qualitative evidence.

Like Fatima and the “dancing, zig-zagging” Sun?

Sometimes when 1,000 people report something odd it is simply mass hallucination and not qualitative evidence.

Is there any evidence that mass hallucinations are a real phenomena?

[bennyboy]

Like Fatima and the “dancing, zig-zagging” Sun?

Sometimes when 1,000 people report something odd it is simply mass hallucination and not qualitative evidence.

Is there any evidence that mass hallucinations are a real phenomena?

Interesting question.  That would be anecdotal evidence for sure, since something like that is unlikely to be reproducible, at least in its original state, which requires charismatic leaders or other special circumstances.  What, are you going to put a thousand people in a lab and have someone try to make them hallucinate?

I would guess yes, because if you get a Megachurch full of a hundred thousand fervent X-tians and get them all dancing and speaking in tongues, their energy is likely to feed off each other's, and this could very likely lead to a trance-like state, i.e. hypnotic.  And we know for sure that in a hypnotic state, people are capable of hallucination.

[robvalue]

Considering millions of religious people are following the wrong religion and still have group experiences, I'd say yes. The human mind can be extremely suggestible, some more than others.

Maybe there's a link between suggestability and being/staying religious. I'd bet there is.