(October 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm)robvalue Wrote:
There is a big problem with what you've just said above. You're saying anecdotes become more likely to be true, as their content becomes further removed from reality; at least once you've passed the point of the extremely mundane. I find this to be entirely backwards. The more outlandish the anecdote, the more likely it is that the person is mistaken.
I am not saying that at all.... What I did say, and perhaps you misunderstood, is that if I'm making something up, that I tend to keep it simple, and lacking details. I am going to go with something that is more easily believed. However; I wouldn't say that something is more likely true, because it is not the norm. Though something that is difficult to believe will likely have more pressure to change the story. How do you support that a more outlandish anecdote is more likely mistaken?
Quote:(1) An anecdote only ever tells you what a person believes happened. It can never tell you what actually happened. They can be as truthful and accurate as they like, but it will always be their interpretation of events. And when those events become more and more fantastical, our ability to accurately relay them will reduce. It's not the slightest bit unusual that someone might think they've seen something that a sceptic would consider undemonstrated by science. It's not surprising, at all. It is always going to be exceedingly less likely that this time, this time in particular, they really did experience it, and managed to do so accurately, in spite of science not even knowing what the fuck could be happening. The tendency to say "they can't all be wrong, this one is believable" is going to correlate highly with pre held beliefs, in my opinion. How do you pick them apart? Even the most reliable, truthful person can be mistaken. It's not even about that. That's a common mistake. Lots of people "saw the same thing"? Again, there are plenty of simple explanations, which can't simply be discarded because you like the conclusion. Not if you're taking evidence seriously. Yes, they can all be wrong, and it's not even surprising if they are. Not all lying, but wrong. Also, be careful with "you can't prove it isn't"; the argument from ignorance. An irrelevant statement revealing presuppositions. I'm not "allowing" any anecdotal evidence with all these objections? Quite right, I'm not, when it comes to the extraordinary, whether it lines up with my beliefs or not. I'm simply relaying how things work (in my opinion).
I would agree, that anyone can be mistaken, and that everything (even science) is an interpretation of events. This is inescapable! It doesn't change how we can know things, and unless you want to advocate a non-viable hyper-skepticism of everything has to be absolutely certain; I don't see what your argument is here. You again make the statement, that "when those events become more and more fantastical, our ability to accurately relay them will reduce." What is this based on? It also does seem to pre-suppose that the event was out of the ordinary, and then deny that it is (this is incoherent). What is your reasoning, that accuracy diminishes in this way? I can understand that in such a case, the majority of one's attention may be focused on the un-usual and that out lying details may be less accurate. The mind can only focus a certain amount at a time. Science is a very good thing, but it is not the only thing. I am not pitting science against anything here. However to use science where science does not or cannot make a statement is wrong. Events where happening long before modern formal science understood them. And I would be willing to wager, that events are still happening, that science cannot explain. These things don't all of the sudden become reality; when and only when, they are acknowledged by a person (or persons) in a lab coat. There doesn't need to be a scientific inquiry in order for something to be true, and I would submit, that someone seeing something is pretty good evidence that it did happen.
You say that lot's of people can see the same thing, and can be wrong. I can agree. They can also be correct (the question is why is one correct and the other not... do we have reason to believe one over the other) A lot of people can believe the same thing (and for bad reasons); which also they may be correct or incorrect. What I am seeing, is that you are categorically denying the evidence for anything you do not wish to believe, and then disparaging them for not supplying evidence. I think that you are also mis-using the argument from ignorance. Actually your are imploring it. You are not making an argument but asking for others to prove your belief wrong. Not only that, but you insist, that anything that would prove you wrong must be mistaken (and without reason). I believe that you have said previously, that even if you have seen the evidence for yourself, that you would not believe it. I'm a bit skeptical, that even if scientist would confirm the evidence, that you would not just dismiss it as pseudo-science. I don't think that it is about evidence for you, based on your statements.
Now, I am only talking about this as a general principle here. I'm not attempting to make any particular argument for a certain event. I'm also not taking any form of absolute position, and believe that we need to consider all the evidence in any given situation. If we are making a claim, then the reasons for that claim lies on the one making it. One may simply not be persuaded, but then the position of skepticism is not making any statement of true or false. As I stated previously, I think that your definition of anecdote is a bit unusual. I understand your stance on it being testable (falsifiable) and largely agree; however I don't think that the only means of knowing reality is through scientific repeatable testing. Not all sciences even fit this criteria. I don't find the argument from incredulity to be very convincing against evidence.
