Anecdotal Evidence

[Mudhammam]

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.

I don't entirely understand the question but I suppose Christianity is comparable to any other religion in its reliance on anecdotal evidence to establish its claim to authority, namely through "he said she said... she saw a ghost that healed her grandmother's indigestion, and what's more, tickled her with a joy for which only the Christian god could be responsible," and claims of that sort.  It always relies on a person's interpretation of feelings or private experiences in terms first put forth by some obscure figures whom nobody really knows much about 2,000 years ago, and never upon any testable hypotheses or reasoning that can be demonstrated in any manner whatsoever.  I suppose calling reports of Christian miracles or mystical wanderings "anecdotal" is going too far though; for, it is generally even worse than anecdotal evidence, in that it doesn't even seem able to point us towards anything useful.

The principle or justification in regards to evidence boils down to our experience; how a claim accords with our experience, the claim's internal consistency, the nature of the observations involved and one's expectations when weigned against any other claim, in a word, the principle is more or less a method that works.  And is repeatedly affirmed by the collective efforts of individuals who span across the globe, with aims to piece together as much empirical data into a picture of reality that is as simple and coherent as possible.