Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Ok... so you seem to be making a  distinction, between a claim of do this, and this will happen, to one of an inductive nature the conclusion most likely follows the premises.   That is the nature of history, and a good many investigative sciences.  How are you connecting this to the discussion, and how does it effect testimony?  You mention that to falsify a claim about a physical process, that you need specific skills and or equipment.  And to falsify testimony, that you need specific information.   I would agree, that not all testimony is falsifiable (and this should be taken into consideration).  My question is, if myself (lacking the specific skills and equipment) can count the testimony of a number of independent scientist as to what they report?   This would seem to be relying on others for that specific information that I personally lack.  

We can also take a hyper-skeptical attitude where next to nothing is falsifiable, but I don't think this is useful (and often inconsistent).

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

Yes, I don't think that you can really have overkill when it comes to evidence (although I may be skeptical, when the evidence is too neat and too perfect).  But you seemed to be making a point about needing corroboration.   I was pointing out, that indirect evidence often only gives a part of the picture, and needs other evidence as well.  I don't understand what you are saying,  if the evidence cannot stand alone, that it is not evidence?

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.

Well you seem to be saying that testimony is not science..... what does that mean in regards to the discussion?  
Yet again, you seem to be saying that if you do not see it for yourself, that it is not evidence, or that it is only evidence to the one who has seen.   Do you not know anything, which you have not personally seen? (it must be a small world for you).