Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I just wanted to add.   I am asking questions, in order to provoke discussion.   I do think that your position is probably the most reasonable of the others we have seen.  I understand, that within philosophy, the epistemological value of testimony, is still a contested thing; and, is not a slam dunk in either direction.  What stands in the favor of testimony, is that it is the most direct and exhaustive form of evidence in a good example.   That is, it can provide you with more information than anything else.  Also, many of the claims of fallibility can be applied to other forms of evidence as well.   Against it, is many of the things that you have cited.  However, what I think wins out, is that we all have to rely on the testimony of others, in a good many number of cases.   We cannot get away from using testimony, even in arguing against it.  Even in a court case, they call in expert testimony to inform us, they don't do the autopsy there in court.

RR, I think we agree (and correct me if I'm wrong) in principle that testimony can be used as evidence. Where we disagree is how the evidence is weighted. It seems that you view testimonial evidence as equal to physical evidence where I think it lags behind the physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence can be tainted just as testimony can be. But, we can re-test physical evidence (for that which needs testing), even years or in some cases decades after the events. Testimony, not so much. Memories fade, and worse, change over time. The powder residue in the pillow "Joe" used to muffle the shots, not so much. The powder residue in the shirt "Joe" was wearing, the video of him running from the store, the hairs that match his found at the scene etc...

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Knowing what I know about memory, it's doubtful I'll ever change my stance on this. Of course, if newer information about human memory comes to light or better technologies for verifying testimonies, I'm open to reconsideration.

You are very close.... I wouldn't use terms, such as greater than or equal to, in terms of categories of evidence.  For one evidence often compounds, and what may be individually weak, is stronger together.  It also depends on the circumstances surrounding the evidence.  DNA may be very weak in on circumstance, and very strong in another.  

I do have a question, that I am dying to ask though.... are you relying on your memory, in order to judge against it?  For instance, should I trust your memory of the anecdote you told about the summer olympics in NYC, or await for DNA evidence, or something I can put in a test tube?