Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

RR is finally at that point in the debate where he's forced to deploy his scorch-the-earth strategy (as rhythm nicely described it once):  "How do you really know anything about anything unless you've observed it directly?"  

This is essentially a total abandonment of the argument itself; an attempt to delegitimize the subject as a whole in fact, in a desperate attempt to save face.  Better to just blow that rabbit hole to smithereens rather than admit you've been chased down, and have no where left to go, right RR?  

And if you remember, you were forced to resort to this same embarrassing tactic in The Real Religion thread when, in regards to scientific evidence versus eye-witness testimony, you desperately declared:  "How do you KNOW scientists study the safety of medications, for example?  Did you WATCH them perform the research?"  

Pathetic, and robotic, and dishonest to your core.  That's my impression, anyway.

Are we at the point where you try to attack and discredit me, without adding anything about the discussion.     Would you like to amend the principle in question?  How about it is not evidence, if we don't like the conclusion?   Or you can tell me how I am mis-applying the principle?   Or better yet, justify these some of the special rules being put forth.