(October 27, 2016 at 9:58 pm)Cato Wrote: Has 'anecdotal evidence' now become a euphemism for 'revelation'? The change in terms doesn't make the burning bush story any more believable. Keep in mind that this is the same dude that disappeared and came back with some special rules. Anybody else see a pattern?
Jormungger (sp?) had it right earlier. Believability comes down to the claim and the source among other variables.
I conclude that the entire purpose of this thread is an attempt to lead us heathens toward the reasonable light of the power of anectotal evidence only to find that it's a revelation freight train bearing down on our asses.
RoadRunner,
Nobody is taking the bait; time to cut the line.
As I had said before, I think that anecdotal is being used in an awkward and unusual fashion. The definition I was given, was something similar to non-repeatable verbal or written account. But this usage of the term, became awkward for me to use, and so I have since switched to testimony. If there is a difference, in what is meant, then I would like to hear it.
As to the purpose of this thread, I think, that you shouldn't jump to conclusions. It was only to discuss the value of testimony as evidence, and perhaps also to learn the rules in regards to how you guys think. There are a lot of discussions, such as evolution, which become much easier, if I follow those rules. I don't think it is useful, but that is why I wanted to discuss.
