Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

I apologize, I kind of got away from this thread.  I've been working 12 hour days, and working on the house, on the weekends.  With that, I'm not gong to quote anyone, because I realize that people may no longer have interest; but, I had a couple of closing thoughts on the conversation.

As to testimony being the weakest form of evidence, or that it was not preferred in historical and legal matters.  I would ask for those saying this, to support their statements.  Looking at historical method, it deals quite a bit with testimony and how to test one's witnesses.  J. Warner Wallace, who was a quite successful homicide and cold case detective in Los Angeles, states that he has won cases with nothing but testimony evidence, or with no forensic evidence.  Personally; I don't think that any category of evidence is stronger or weaker a priori.   That the strength of the evidence, is based on how well it accounts for what happens, which in many cases, testimony can tell you a lot more than any other single piece of indirect evidence. 

So this week, I was envisioning a scenario, where many of the arguments seemingly presented here come into play.   I am at a casino, playing texas hold'em.  I am slow playing my royal flush (which I have never seen dealt before).  My opponent plays right to it, and I am able to build up quite a large pot.  As the cards are turned over however,  I am astonished when the dealer tells me, that I lost the hand.   He goes on to talk about Bayes theorem and the odds against getting a royal flush.   How about how we cannot trust what we perceive to see, and that it is far more likely, that I had a high card or maybe a pair.  Multiple people affirm that I did indeed get a royal flush, but the dealer insist that we cannot know that without the casino scientist verifying that it did in fact take place.  As he collects the cards, he explains that their resident scientist called in sick that day, and that I would have to come back tomorrow, so get a decision.  When I return the next day,  we are unable to repeat the hand, and they decide that a much more mundane explanation is more plausible.  At the end of this imagined account, I am escorted out of building (likely in cuffs) and asked that I not return with such nonsense (and the abusive transactions which likely transpired after). 

So, in this account, would I be wrong in believing what I saw, and what others testified to, and should I apologize to the dealer and casino?

---

You speak respectfully for the most part, so forgive me if I don't seem to respond in kind this post.


I think you are attempting to establish a kind of slippery slope argument-- "Well, SOME kinds of anecdotal evidence is found useful, so anecdotal evidence should always be considered. . . including anecdotes about Jesus."

You are questioning and explaining yourself, just for the record, I don't find that offensive at all.
To an extent, you would be correct here.  And as someone said above, and I agreed with, anecdotes and testimony are different, and what I'm really speaking of is testimony. I only used anecdotes, because that is what I was seeing used (and I explained why)    I would also agree, that not all testimony is equal.  There are a number of things, that make testimony stronger or weaker, but what I am against, is asking for evidence, and then denying any evidence, on the grounds of a priori belief.  

However, you are dealing in absolutes, when there's no requirement that the standards we hold for evidence must be absolute.  It's not true that anecdotes either should or should not be accepted.  It IS true that if you want to persuade people, you will have to meet THEIR bar for evidence.

Now here I would quibble, because the problem as I see it, is that you are talking about persuasion which is subjective, and different than providing evidence. I don't think that evidence ceases to be evidence, because you didn't provide it persuasive.  A prosecutor, and the defending lawyer, are both going to provide evidence, for their opposing cases.   And apart from a hung jury, they are going to find one more persuasive than the other.  There is also insufficient evidence to consider.  I'm not dealing in absolute's, and I'm willing to discuss the reasons why something should be rejected as evidence.   With my experience here, I can get past the irrational absolutes, when dealing with the subject, to talk about detail.

If a Christian says to another Christian, "I felt the presence of the Lord in the room," then this assertion will almost for sure be unchallenged.  That's not because your assertion is intrinsically valuable, but because another Christian is unlikely to challenge this kind of assertion.

If you say the same thing to me, I'm likely to demand that you describe in very specific terms what the Lord is and why you would attribute your feelings to His presence.

I agree, and wouldn't consider that very good evidence.  And I think that you would be justified in your skepticism.   This isn't to say that it isn't true, but alone, it is not very good evidence.