Anecdotal Evidence

[bennyboy]

I'm not trying to bend science or the standards of evidence.  Testimony as evidence has been regarded for some time, in legal and historical investigation.  And I think that you are more focused on the consequences in regards to religion in this discussion than I am. Now as far as I can gather, the only rational argument you have made is that testimony can be unreliable.  This included mistakes and lies.  If you wish to continue in the discussion, I think that it would be good, to expand further on this, and why testimony should not be considered evidence (as it is now).  It may be news to you, but anything involving people, can have mistakes or be lied about.   In the areas mentioned above (legal and historical) there are methods to detect these as well.

I still feel there's a disconnect here. I don't think anyone really disregards testimony as evidence. If there's a car crash, and no cameras, then you have to ask bystanders what they saw. But you always get people in court saying stuff like, "He veered to the side of his lane, like he was thinking about passing. . ." and the judge will tell the guy-- don't speculate, just say what you saw.

Again, the problem isn't with anecdotal evidence. It's that people's narratives are often colored by what they believe, and this can make them skew what they report, instead of telling literal truth. Worse, the person listening to the anecdote has the job of determining whether the report is being skewed.