Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

I'm with you, to a degree, on evolution.  It's a much more subtle and philosophical position than it is normally taken for.  I find it particularly annoying that it is often couched in narratives based on what we assume were environmental pressures for a given species-- "Oh, well there must have been a shortage of leaves, so the longer necks were obviously the species' response to increased competition for food" or whatever.  There literally is no physical trait or behavior that someone can't make up a story for, and these narratives get passed on as science.

That being said, evolution as adaptation of existing species is done in labs with flies and so on, and I believe it is reproducible given a simple enough species and very highly controlled environmental "pressures."

Something similar happens in complex ANN's (artificial neural networks), in which you can get some very interesting results, but you cannot actually observe all the many changes and processes which lead to them.  You just know that given x number of "trials," you can achieve y results.  Or, for that matter, in the human mind, in which you can know a lot about how brain chemistry works, but not too much about how it results in the ability to subjectively experience.

---

Benny,

Thanks for the conversation,  in many things, our thinking is not all that far apart.  I appreciate, that you explain your rational, and wanted to expand a little bit, on what I meant, that I think this discussion bares a interesting twist on the burden of proof.  The "burden of proof" means that it is upon the one making the claim, to provide sufficient warrant, for their position.   Similarly "evidence" is defined as anything which is used to support an assertion.  Therefore, if testimony, is not evidence, then the burden of proof, would require that the claim be demonstrated to the person, in order to provide sufficient reason for another to believe.  And not just one person, but each and every time thereafter.  Without doing so, then you cannot support you claim.  

Now you gave an example earlier of someone producing cold fusion.  And as discussed, we would differ, in that I would only require good testimonial support, that they had done so (This would include multiple people, and also showing, that they where able to confirm the claim).  On the other hand, you required, that it need to be reproduced.  For me this is the difference, between showing that they did produce a certain effect, and knowing how they did it.  However,  as a general principle, I think that we need to consider this not only in some claims, but in all claims (where the principle fits) or justify our reason's for why the principle does not need apply in that case. Or we are accepting much without sufficient reason.