(October 6, 2016 at 11:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(October 6, 2016 at 10:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Interesting..... when I am inclined to fabricate something, I tend to keep it simple and easily believable (as well as low on details). Not to invite questions, or encourage people to check out my story.
And I have mistaken meter readings; far more often, then mistaking a visiting of a ghost of Lincoln... your mileage apparently varies.
My view is that mundane anecdotes are more likely reliable for a different reason. If I'm trying to convince you that the Okanagan region in British Columbia has really nice peaches, I'll probably just state so. If you don't believe me, then I'll shrug and change the subject.
So I'd recommend this as a second measure of validity-- the more the person tries to convince you that their anecdote is real, the less likely it is to be true, since the person obviously has a personal motivation for getting you to believe.
I don't know if I would agree with that. Would you apply the same standard of reasoning to other evidence?
By the way, I did like your previous response. I didn't say much at the time, because it is essentially the standard reasoning, and the argument found often on the inter webs, for why anecdotes are not scientific evidence.
