Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

How come when I ask you to clearly state YOUR position, you answer by asking me to define terms for you?  

I don't see how this applies to the context, but normally, because I I want to clarify or make sure that we are talking about the same thing. I find it more charitable to submit to your understanding of the terms, then to dictate mine. Also, a little while ago in a discussion on objective morality, I defined what I meant a number of times by objective, and in the end, the other person still wasn't reasoning by that meaning.

The only person who is placing "scientific" in front of the word "testimony" (either explicitly or implied) is you.

Ok... do you find it an inappropriate use. If so why?

 I'll ask again, RR.  Can you clearly state your position in this thread?  (Hint: try using the word "you" less).

As I have stated before, my position is that I believe that often the term "anecdote" is being misapplied to equivocate it with testimony. That this is because of the use of the term "anecdotal" evidence, normally used in regard to cherry picked data or a hasty generalization, in comparison to a controlled medical experiment. Within this usage, I agree, and I agree with the reasons. Testimony, I do believe is evidence, and that it can be sufficient alone for rational belief. In some cases, it may be stronger than circumstantial physcial evidence, at other times, the physical evidence may out weight the testimony..... It is complex and I don't believe that the process is a formulaic one (other wise, we wouldn't have jurys in courts); but I do believe that we should be consistent and coherent in our rationalizations.

However please don't confuse my position, with purpose in this thread.