RE: Anecdotal Evidence
October 11, 2016 at 8:51 pm
(This post was last modified: October 11, 2016 at 8:54 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 11, 2016 at 5:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(October 9, 2016 at 10:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The issue is in asking for evidence, and then denying any evidence a priori based on the content. I think that this is dishonest. Also, as I have mentioned, this use of the term anecdote is unusual and seems almost forced. Now you can do a search, and find websites which will state anecdotes are not evidence. This is in the context of scientific research. And if you look at the examples in these instances, what they are addressing when they say it is not evidence, it is not denying that the events are being being conveyed accurately. It is addressing issues; such as cherry picking data, hasty generalization, and post hoc ergo hoc, in coming to a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence. And I think that this is the source of this awkward use of the term found here.
You assess that I am trying to raise the profile of anecdotes. I would suggest that you do some study in the use of testimony in historical and legal contexts. In your unusual definition of anecdote, you included that it is un-testable. I disagree. It is un-repeatable; but, unless you are wanting to limit what is knowable, to only what is repeatable (which I think that most epidemiologist and philosophers would take issue's with) then I don't think the argument is very well thought out. I do think that seeing something occur is good evidence, that it is possible, even if those with higher learning, cannot reproduce or explain it. Likewise, we can share what we know with others, and what is knowable, is not limited to our own personal experience. I would agree, that people can make mistakes, and if I had seen something unusual, I would be the first, to ask someone else (if available) if they saw the same thing. We do need to test a witness, and even test ourselves. This applies to our philosophies, not just to anecdotes.
I'm not discussing this as something specific concerning only religious texts, but as a general principle. It has to do with correct reasoning. Now if I was endorsing the use of a logical fallacy as an argument, would that impact real life? Maybe, maybe not. People got a long just fine, before these things where considered. People got a long for many years, before modern science as well. But, I think that if you are going to have a thoughtful discussion using this principle, then we are open to examine that philosophy. I would ask again, what are you basing this view on. So far, all I remember seeing, is that people can make mistakes, and people can lie. I agree, however I don't think that a modernist view (where everything has to be certain) or a post-modern view (where nothing can be known) is very profitable.
Here's the thing. You're conflating facts with interpretations. I will accept the Bible's assertions that so-and-so said something, or even SAW (or thought he saw) something. I will even accept individual Christians' testimony about the things they can be gnostic about-- their feelings, the events of their lives, etc. But I will not accept their interpretation of what CAUSED their experiences (God, miracles, etc.) unless they have demonstrated those causes to be real. And they haven't.
More irrational assertions:
-Aunt Edna's kidney stones suddenly dissipated (fact) after everyone prayed for her (fact), so it's probably a work of God (illogical assertion).
-I prayed in church (fact), and I felt the hairs go up on my neck (fact), my heart started pounding really fast (fact), and I felt God in the room (kind of a fact), so God is real and was in the room (illogical assertion)
-I was a stone-cold killer (an exaggerated fact), and a hard-core gangster (possible fact), then I accepted Jesus as my personal savior (fact), and my life improved greatly (fact). Therefore, God is real, thank you Jebus (illogical assertion)
The problem isn't so much with testimony. It's with the unqualified assertions that piggyback on it. No Christian says, "My heartrate is pounding, but I feel a strange sense of peace. Could be endorphins and the trigger of neurotransmitters in response to ritualistic behaviors!" Every Christian says something like, "I can feeeeeeel the Looooord in the room! Praise God, who is so obviously reeeeaaaal!" A few million of these illogical assertions, and Christians think they're establishing a probability by weight of evidence. Actually, they're only demonstrating that Christians interpret their feelings through Christ-colored glasses-- which is neither surprising nor useful in establishing truth.
It is true that we often listen to friends' testimony or anecdotes. However, while I will easily believe my friend's assertions that his house once had 10 wasp nests, I will probably not believe his assertions that it's because the deck was painted blue, or there are a lot of pine trees in the area, or God was mad because his brother was gay. That's because I know my friend doesn't know shit about wasps.
And I know that most people don't know shit about how the brain works, and how their experiences are generated in the brain.
Thanks for a rational and well laid out case. It's refreshing, and fills me with hope
I mostly agree, but that is not the reason for the comment above.