Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Did I give the impression that we are disagreeing on any legitimate terminology here?  It's when you invent your own in an attempt to equivocate and give weight to something that carries practically none,  (or the reverse of that)...that I start to take issue.

Ok... do you find it ("scientific testimony") an inappropriate use.    If so why?

 
The only definition of "scientific testimony" that I will agree upon in this, or any discussion, is the only legitimate one that actually exists; which is scientific testimony as proffered by an expert witness on the stand during a court room proceeding.   But that's not what you're talking about at all, is it?  I'm going to keep using that word you don't think I understand the meaning of.  [emoji6]

Are you saying that testimony is limited to a courtroom?  The definition says that it is especially used in a court, but not that it's use is limited to that.   The root simply means "a witness" .

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.

Sure...I'm not opposed to most of the above.  I think where we differ here is in your obvious implication regarding what should constitute the bare minimum of evidential support for supernatural claims...bible claims specifically.  

You seem to want to say, "if we take each claim case by case like the special little snow flakes they are, then I can rationally justify my belief in necromancy and unleavened bread falling from the sky, while at the same time equally as rationally reject every other supernatural claim that falls under my purview."   The problem with this is that all supernatural claims are equally lacking in scientific evidence to support them.  As rhythm mentioned, to ask for lenience in the case of bible claims is absolutely special pleading.

It appears to me, that you are venturing into scientism.... do you think that science is the only way of gaining knowledge?  Or that if science doesn't explain something; that it didn't happen?   This seems irrational to me.  Also I think that you are making a lot of assumptions, and reading into in the "you seem to want to say" statement.  We haven't gotten to rejecting anything yet, except for I think that rejecting by begging the question is bad.  I have said, a number of times, that accepting testimony as evidence, doesn't mean that you do not question things.   I am guessing, that those who use "known to be possible" of a criteria, do not just hand over their information to that Prince in the Middle East, that wants to send them money (because it is possible)