Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I agree with you, and it's why I have been saying since the beginning, that I think that the use of anecdote (as I have found it used here at times) is awkward.

 I honestly think many here speak of anecdotal evidence because there are so many anecdotes presented here as evidence by believers.

I don't have a specific example to look up (and don't think it would be that easy to google) as far as a conviction based only on witness testimony, however the following, gives many examples concerning the weight of testimony.  http://randalrauser.com/2013/12/rd-miksa...testimony/

I'm going to withdraw my objection about testimony alone getting convictions. It seems it happens frighteningly often (it's actually quite easy to google). I will instead present a counter to the link you provided, which struck me as an opinion piece by someone with an agenda. This link is to an article on the pros and cons of testimonial evidence. It also contains an embedded Ted Talk by a forensic expert on the efficacy of testimonial evidence. If you truly want to understand why most of us here tend to discount even eye witness testimony, and dismiss anecdotes and allegory out of hand, watch the video. Before watching the video, let me ask you ask you a question (the relevancy will become clear in the video). On 9/11, both of the trade center towers were destroyed. How long after seeing the first tower collapse did you see the second tower collapse? A few minutes? An hour or two? Hours later? The next day? Some time in the following week? Whatever your answer is, write it down before you watch the video.

I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but my guess would be about a half hour to 1 hour later (for the second plane at the trade center).   I have never denied many of the things in such articles, and think that they should be considered when looking at testimony.  Most of them, are about the ability to pick someone out of a line up, interrogator contamination and that memory is not like a video tape (hope they didn't spend too much money figuring out that one).  However in a number of times asking, I haven't had anyone discuss anything about the particulars in those studies (I'm starting to think, that people didn't read past the titles, or give it any thought).   How do we apply them to witness testimony?  Also, I'm curious, how many people remember the second tower being brought down by a car bomb that day?

As to the testimony concerning alien's, I do think that some accounts can be explained, but there are some also, which do have a hint of credibility to them.  There are some interesting parallels in abductions claims but most only have single witness support.  I am somewhat skeptical.

Actually, the question was regarding alien abduction, but I'll grant you broadening it to aliens in general. If you're skeptical of aliens visiting our tiny speck of the cosmos then surely you can understand our skepticism of religious claims. The actual evidence that can be presented for the case for God is exclusively testimonial and worse, it's (at best) hearsay. There is no physical evidence. No smoking gun, no DNA evidence, no forensic traces at all. Only writings which are, by the most liberal interpretation of the dating, a couple decades removed from the events they purport to report.

If the state were required to prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think, even considering what I've learned about testimonial evidence, they could satisfy their burden of proof with an unbiased jury.

Just to clarify, I do think that there are some interesting stories, of alien abductions.  I have never checked into them very much.   I did recently read a book "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men" by Hugh Ross.  I think that there was times in the book where he tried to stretch things a little to far; but, there was some accounts which may supply a little evidence.  However being skeptical, doesn't mean that I don't accept testimony, on such cases, but that I think critically about it and don't take things for granted.  I don't just dismiss them as false, before I even look at the evidence (that is pseudo-skepticism).

ETA:
Apologies for taking so long to reply. I don't have the time I once had for the forums and I wanted to research my responses before I made them. Turned out to be a good idea since my responses wound up quite different from what I anticipated.

No problem in the time, I understand, and would much rather have a good response, rather then quick rhetoric.