I have seen often here the claim; as put recently that anecdotal evidence is not evidence for anything more than the mundane.
To my understanding at least, this seems to be used in an odd and at times seemingly forced use. I am familiar; as one would peruse from a quick google search, the use of the term anecdotal evidence in a scientific sense. A case such as: "Bob drank 8 glasses of water a day, and his cancer went away; therefore water cures cancer". I don't dispute such uses of the terms or the reasoning. Also, it seems that the use in such a case, it is not making a statement about the facts of the case (That Bob drank water, or was subsequently cancer free). The issue here is that a general conclusion, is being made from what is normally a small sample size and insufficient reason.
So I would like for anyone interested: to clarify, what they mean by anecdotal evidence, particularly in regard to use in reference to Christianity. Also the principle or justification of any claim in regards to evidence.
To my understanding at least, this seems to be used in an odd and at times seemingly forced use. I am familiar; as one would peruse from a quick google search, the use of the term anecdotal evidence in a scientific sense. A case such as: "Bob drank 8 glasses of water a day, and his cancer went away; therefore water cures cancer". I don't dispute such uses of the terms or the reasoning. Also, it seems that the use in such a case, it is not making a statement about the facts of the case (That Bob drank water, or was subsequently cancer free). The issue here is that a general conclusion, is being made from what is normally a small sample size and insufficient reason.
So I would like for anyone interested: to clarify, what they mean by anecdotal evidence, particularly in regard to use in reference to Christianity. Also the principle or justification of any claim in regards to evidence.
