Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Who is it; who keeps bringing religion and God into the discussion?   I am trying to establish and discuss the general principles involved with the epistemology of testimony.   It would seem to follow, that we need to do this, before either applying them to, or discussing and justifying any special distinctions that are made towards the subject of religious testimony.  So far, I have been discussing the general principles alone, that apply to everything that is equal with the definition of testimony.   Perhaps a fear of letting a divine foot in the door, is what is making discussion difficult.

Nobody I know is this fascinated with establishing the validity of anecdotal evidence as you are.  Given that you are Christian, I think it's not an unreasonable supposition that you have a motive-- the evidence you have at hand is of a type that is used only in special circumstances.

Just to be clear, I am really discussing testimony as evidence.  To my understanding anecdotal carries a nuance of being short, and I normally would not consider that very good evidence.  However it seems to be equivocated here (and I have stated why I thought that it was).  Also given your position, I could also assume motive... however I'm not really concerned with your motives, but the reasons you give as to why?  Also you may consider, that my motive is that I believe this to be a bad argument (ad hoc, begging the question, and shifting the goal posts),  and I'm giving you a chance to rationalize and explain your view.

That being said, I'd like to float a new idea-- that evidence and the idea it is more acceptable if it is of like kind.  If I'm talking about what happened in my day, that's a narrative, and an anecdote matches fine.  People don't really care if the cupcake you ate was the "best thing I ever ate!" because it's all part of that narrative.

If you're talking science, an anecdote has very little import, unless you're talking about the narrative-- dude, I dropped my vial, and I discovered a new polymer by accident.  I'll accept the story as a narrative, but I won't believe that there's a new polymer unless I can see it.

So are you saying; that I shouldn't believe what scientists tell me, unless I can see it for my self?   That leaves a lot open, and makes the world a much smaller place.   Should I also not believe that Sweden exists, until I can verify it personally?  What if a number of scientists are reporting that they have verified the new polymer?  

I think that this new idea, needs some more thought.   As is, those that deny the moon landing, or the holocaust are not that irrational.