The nature of evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

I think, that what I find peculiar, is the way the term "anecdote" is being used here (almost as if being shoe horned in).  Perhaps I view evidence differently.  I see different kinds of evidence having different uses or strengths. I also do not think that evidence and reason is in the domain of science alone.  This may be dependent on the category of the topic one is dealing with.   Strength of evidence can vary, and is really dependent on how well the evidence speaks to uncovering the truth in question. 

A double blind study, with a large number of tests; I believe is very strong evidence.  Yet to demand this type of evidence above all other's even within science; is incorrect.   I don't see evolution or other historical studies in science doing double blind tests.   This is because double blind tests speaks to what is likely to occur in the future, and doesn't describe the past.  Similarly;  the results of such tests do not preclude an anomaly, or speak to the truthfulness or falsity of what happened previously.  It is a poor method of judgement in this manner.

What you guy's are calling "anecdotes" in legal terms, they call direct evidence.  It is called direct, because it speaks directly to what has occurred.  Most often the physical or forensic evidence is circumstantial.  It requires and inductive leap to connect the evidence to the case being made.   This is not to say, that direct evidence, is better or more preferred over circumstantial evidence.   It all depends on what the individual piece of evidence, can tell us, and overall, how all the evidence together works to paint a picture of what occurred. 

In mentioning "testimony of evidence", all I meant, was someone else telling us, what they found or observed.  I may have to rely on others, to tell me, about their scientific results (and reporting all the information accurately), the same as someone telling me, what they observed.

Also, to the poster, who wrote an anecdote, as evidence against anecdotes.   Your post was noticed and appreciated.

---

You know, I actually agree with almost every word of this. (The exception being that Double Blind studies, while providing exceptionally good evidence, are not applicable to anything that doesn't involve humans directly. The purpose of the Double Blind is to keep the tester from giving subconscious cues to the tested, thereby altering the results. If the tester does not know, he cannot give anything away.

I can agree with that....We can just stick to observable and repeatable which many espouse here. I don't think that common descent evolution meets this criteria, therefore according to the arguments here, I can say that there is no evidence for common descent evolution. And if you disagree could you please send me a kit so I can repeat common descent evolution for myself. I don't want to depend on storybook evidence. I also find these claims quite extraordinary, which would require extraordinary evidence. We'll leave this as a vague and poorly defined standard, which you must meet.

For most things involving the physical world, statistical and process analysis are used.) However, eyewitness testimony still remains incredibly weak evidence, as several scientific tests have shown. People can be mistaken, can misremember, can simply make things up with the best of intentions, for any number of reasons.

I did have a discussion on eyewitness testimony in another thread a while ago. It seems to me, that while I can understand the conclusion of some, to dismiss all of eyewitness testimony if you only read the titles of those studies. In reading the studies themselves, they dealt with specific aspects of eyewitness testimony, and in particular recognition of a stranger afterwards. Which I would agree with. The other parts seemed to show, that eyewitness recollection seemed to show that it is not equal to video recording, where any particular miniscule detail can be recalled at will (I hope they didn't spend too much tax payer money on this).

I'll try to post something about your comments on dating later today, or tomorrow.