Anecdotal Evidence

[robvalue]

If you can't repeat something, you can only falsify it in theory (in the abstract) and not in practice.

Can you please clarify what you mean by the distinction between abstract and practice.   For instance, in the studies, concerning witness identification, and memory, that are cited; would you agree, that they are dependent upon witness testimony being falsifiable in a meaningful way?

What I mean is that you can't run a test to find out whether it is false. You can only deduce it from other evidence, or perhaps using logic. So you haven't directly demonstrated it, you've used an abstract process. This is different to a theory about reality, which can be tested directly, and shown to be false in practice.

It depends on the testimony. If it is specific enough, then you're right, it may well be possible to mount enough evidence to show that the events did not happen as described beyond reasonable doubt. This certainly doesn't apply to all testimony, and I'd agree that ones that can in some way be falsified are much more useful.

But a theory about reality can be falsified by anyone who understands it and has the correct equipment. Falsifying testimony requires access to very specific information. So assuming a theory is probably true is much more reasonable than assuming testimony is probably true.

Right, you look for corroboration. So anecdotes are only an indicator. I don't know what more you want them to be. No one is dismissing them entirely. They can be used as a starting point for further investigation. But if there is nothing more to investigate, then it's tough noogies really. You either believe it, or you don't, and that's up to each individual. And again, no one is trying to tell people not to believe stuff. We could question the consistency of your methods, but we couldn't prevent you believing things even if we wanted to.

I look for corroboration often in regards to physical evidence as well.   Does your same conclusion follow?  

I don't understand what this means. I try and collect as much evidence as I can, and draw the most reasonable conclusion from it. So yes, I look for as much corroboration as possible, no matter what I've already got. It's a matter of feeling convinced. Usually I try to reach a standard where I could convince some other neutral person, unless it's a matter of little concern or importance.

I am all about testing the consistency of methods... that is largely what this thread is about.  Now I would agree, that in many categories of science, simple observation is not enough.   And with that, I would agree with your comments above.   This is because of the nature of the claim, and it is not really pertaining to what has happened, but what will happen in the future.   If you are saying that testimony is not science, then I agree.   But I think that you need to clarify exactly what you are saying by this.

I don't understand what you're asking me here either. You're asking what I'm saying by "testimony isn't science"?

There's also a difference between observation and testimony. If I observe something, that's direct evidence, to me. (Obviously, my memory isn't perfect and so I look for as much external verification as possible too.) If I read testimony, it is not direct evidence. I have no way of knowing whether the events happened as described.