Anecdotal Evidence

[bennyboy]

Yes... we discussed before about persuasion vs evidence.  And I do disagree.   For instance, I think that a jury should find, based on the evidence, not that the evidence is found based on the jury.  It also follows, that this changes what you are saying, when you say that something is not evidence.   Because now this description is subjective, and based more on you, rather than the thing in question, therefore; it is saying more about you than the object.

No, I didn't say that evidence is whatever you want it to be. I said that the listener can set the standard of evidence which they require. In truth, this is a concession to you for the sake of argument-- that SOME people might accept religious testimonials as evidence of God. They might consider the word of respected members of community, like church members, to be reliable enough to take at face value as bringing truth into the light.

But if you want to take evidence that isn't highly convincing-- by which I mean, it is not actual physical evidence-- then you are now necessarily engaged in persuasion. You are attempting to persuade the listener to lower their bar, so that your word may be taken as evidence, rather than as the ramblings of a well-meaning fool at best, and of a manipulative shyster at worst.