Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

The reason it has come up, may be because of my religious beliefs.  But I am really only trying to discuss this particular form of reasoning about knowledge.  I would also disagree, that it is necessarily weak in nature.... but we can never get to that point.

I don't think that any motivations whether real or allusioned to by an interlocutor have any effect on the reasoning (neither do the consequences of a paticular case).   This is about the general, not the specific.

To me, it's pretty simple.  When you are taking evidence that cannot be confirmed (like by another ballistics expert for example), then you have to determine whether the evidence by anecdote has sufficient value to be taken into consideration.  There's also, and this has been mentioned and I think it's crucially important-- the issue of setting the standard.

I'm not saying that all testimony is equal. For example, if the testimony consisted of one person, saying only "I saw a ghost", that really does not tell you what they saw. It tells you what they think they saw. I also do believe that there are standards and indicators that historical or investigative experts do look for. I also would agree, that these could be refined more.

The standard is set by a number of factors-- the importance of the thing being asked about, the degree to which the listener resists the fact being asserted by the anecdote, the level of motivation of the anecdote-teller, and so on.  If someone says they saw cold fusion in a lab, but the data was lost in a fire, I'd be REALLY suspicious, and would flat-out tell them to fuck off until they can show real experimental data-- that's because cold fusion is an issue of HUGE importance, and would be a game-changer if confirmed to be done under reasonable conditions.

Even more important is when someone tells me something that is CONTRARY to facts I already consider known.  I know that things fall down when I let them go.  If you told me that once, on a particularly stormy Friday evening, an apple fell UP, I'd file that away as 99% bullshit and 1% mystery.  So if you, for example, say a man has walked on water, I'd want to inspect the site and look for a ledge or glass platform under its surface.  I'd want him to reproduce the act in conditions under my control.  I wouldn't say-- thousands of people say they saw him, so he must really have done what they say he did.

And that is where I differ. Although if I could demand they take me on a lunar landing, to see for myself that it is possible, that may be interesting. But I don't think that I need to see for myself. I do often look for what other people who have witnessed the claim in question do say though. I also look at who, and what they say. For instance, if the people in your cold fusion example, subsequently when broke (as well as having a ruined reputation), after the fire; would that change your opinion of the account? Also, I would think that there testimony of what the observed, would need to contain details of why they had thought that cold fusion was obtained.

However, I don't think that a priori belief is a reason to reject these accounts. A lot of the arguments here, I think give justification to some young earth or evolution views which simply state, that cannot happen, regardless of evidence.