Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

---

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation. The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis). The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you. Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with). Do you think that he was correct in his method?

[bennyboy]

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation.  The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis).  The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed  because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you.  Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with).  Do you think that he was correct in his method?

Hmmm.

In relativistic terms, the man is right. From the perspective of someone on Earth, everything revolves around it. . . but in extraordinarily complex ways, mathematically speaking. And we still think this way-- for example, we still have charts for when the sun "rises" at different places at different times of year. However, if he ever wants to do space travel, he's going to find the math totally unworkable. He will never be able to generalize his observations into simple, pragmatic principles, and will instead be stuck in a world of crazy charts and graphs which try desperately to map out the details of myriad bodies as they dance around the Earth.

When the evidence drives the conclusions, one is in my opinion forming conclusions correctly. When the evidence does not FIT the conclusions, especially new evidence, one must adapt the conclusions. Any time someone must cover his ears and say "La la la la, I can't hear you!" in order to maintain his world view, then he has decided that the efficiency of maintaining his current world view (no heart searching, no letting go of unworkable ideas, etc.) is more important than truth.

[downbeatplumb]

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation.  The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis).  The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed  because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you.  Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with).  Do you think that he was correct in his method?

The data is there to be checked out, the mathematical proofs and experiments are freely available.
I find this mans rejection of facts presented more like the theist mind set, in that the facts do not match their beliefs so they reject the facts.

[Cyberman]

"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."

[Whateverist]

I once knew someone for whom anecdotal evidence sufficed quite nicely, or so he said.

[Simon Moon]

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation.  The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis).  The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed  because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you.  Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with).  Do you think that he was correct in his method?

Of course he was not using the correct method.

He went into the discussions with a presupposition, then refused to accept any demonstrable evidence that disagreed with his presup. And only accepted evidence that could be spun into his presup.

Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?

[bennyboy]

I once knew someone for whom anecdotal evidence sufficed quite nicely, or so he said.

No you didn't.  You're making that up! Now. . . if you had support for that assertion from a 2000 year-old manuscript, then I might admit you were on to something.

[Whateverist]

I once knew someone for whom anecdotal evidence sufficed quite nicely, or so he said.

No you didn't.  You're making that up!  Now. . . if you had support for that assertion from a 2000 year-old manuscript, then I might admit you were on to something.

  Sorry, I'm obviously underprepared to have made such a statement.

[Angrboda]

---

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

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.

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

---

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation.  The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis).  The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed  because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you.  Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with).  Do you think that he was correct in his method?

I have only to appeal to the test of Occam's razor to support my point here. Named after William of Occam, a 14th century English logician who first enunciated it as a valid rule of evidence, Occam's razor states that when there exist two or more explanations for an occurrence, especially an unusual one, the least incredible one is most likely to be the right one. So in this matter which is more likely? Did a prophet actually foresee the reign of a king and call him by his name 300 years before he was even born, or did the writer of 1 Kings, after the fact, merely write this "prophecy" into his historical narrative? There is no doubt which of the two explanations is the more likely one, so until Bible fundamentalists can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the more likely explanation could not have occurred, they do not have any proof at all in this "prophecy" that God inspired the writing of the Bible.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/farre...phecy.html

In a similar vein, the appeal to anecdote must be measured against Occam's razor. If a claim appears unrealistic or extraordinary given the background knowledge of the case, then it perhaps should be disbelieved in favor of the more plausible explanations of lie, mistake, or error. The caller's method was flawed because he was not making a reasonable appeal to an examination of the weight of evidence of scientist's testimony but simply cleaving to a predetermined supposition that all such testimony was unreliable.

[RoadRunner79]

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation.  The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis).  The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed  because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you.  Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with).  Do you think that he was correct in his method?

The data is there to be checked out, the mathematical proofs and experiments are freely available.
I find this mans rejection of facts presented more like the theist mind set, in that the facts do not match their beliefs so they reject the facts.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my brief description of this particular call, but I would not be surprised to find out, that NASA is not knocking down this guys door.

As to you second comment; at this point in the conversation, all I can say, is that I am in awe of the transfer you are attempting to make; and the guile in the correlation.

---

I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation.  The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis).  The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed  because of their greater orbit.

The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you.  Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with).  Do you think that he was correct in his method?

I have only to appeal to the test of Occam's razor to support my point here. Named after William of Occam, a 14th century English logician who first enunciated it as a valid rule of evidence, Occam's razor states that when there exist two or more explanations for an occurrence, especially an unusual one, the least incredible one is most likely to be the right one. So in this matter which is more likely? Did a prophet actually foresee the reign of a king and call him by his name 300 years before he was even born, or did the writer of 1 Kings, after the fact, merely write this "prophecy" into his historical narrative? There is no doubt which of the two explanations is the more likely one, so until Bible fundamentalists can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the more likely explanation could not have occurred, they do not have any proof at all in this "prophecy" that God inspired the writing of the Bible.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/farre...phecy.html

In a similar vein, the appeal to anecdote must be measured against Occam's razor.  If a claim appears unrealistic or extraordinary given the background knowledge of the case, then it perhaps should be disbelieved in favor of the more plausible explanations of lie, mistake, or error.  The caller's method was flawed because he was not making a reasonable appeal to an examination of the weight of evidence of scientist's testimony but simply cleaving to a predetermined supposition that all such testimony was unreliable.

I believe this is an error in use, of the Occam's Razor.  The difficulty, and I believe what was shown in this particular call, is that background knowledge varies (it's subjective), and previous beliefs should not be the measuring stick of new evidence (especially if you are going to insert lying, mistake, or delusional and the like).   This is good, if you want to hold to the your beliefs and ignore evidence (but then it would seem difficult or at least hypocritical to criticize another for doing the same thing).

According to Wikipedia:

Occam's Razor: The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. 

You may also find simpler in place of fewest assumptions, but I find that this is often misunderstood, in that simpler is better, even if it does not account for all the facts.   Therefore, I do prefer the above quote from WikiP.

The most similar claim made by Occam himself was

one can cite statements such as Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity]

or don't add more than what is needed.  I do find that this shows where the simpler and fewest assumptions terms come into the picture in the above definitions.  

I could see this as applying, in that, as you add collaborating testimony, then it is required to make more assumptions, in adding lying, mistaken, or in error.  And I would agree, that this does often apply the testimony of science.   Although I may caution against merely assuming this, and fore going checking out what others say, simply because someone make a claim of science.  

The following site, includes a video of the Foucault Pendulum.   It is a very cool demonstration of the rotation of the Earth.  However, I think that one who wishes to be hyperskeptical could still easily ignore the evidence and the testimony.   Even in watching a video, one needs to place some trust, in that what is said to be occurring actually is.   Personally I think that a witness of what was tested and observed is enough, but if not, then the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim to demonstrate this personally for them.