Anecdotal Evidence

[Edwardo Piet]

There is one difference between the two, and it's a doozy. Kinky sex does exist (granted at whatever level you consider is kinky), whereas anecdotal evidence does not.

Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron of a similar magnitude to "pacifist mass murderer". You're trying to shoehorn two completely incompatible concepts into one concept and they just will not go.

It's evidence to the experiencer. It's bad evidence when used to convince others of some ultimate or important truth, but it's still evidence no matter how weak.

If so:

Is all evidence necessarily epistemologically objective and if it is doesn't that make all evidence logically entail to constitute knowledge?

Well, at least this is within the philosophy subforum so my question is relevant [emoji106]

My opinion under hide tag:

---

I guess I consider "bad evidence" an oxymoron. "Bad evidence"="invalid evidence" and valid evidence is just actual evidence as opposed to non-evidence or anecdotal bullshit subjectively mistaken as "evident"

In short: It's not even evident to the person. Their judgement is simply mistaken about their perception.

---