Anecdotal Evidence

[downbeatplumb]

I know of one who has said this, and a couple of others who went a long, but I don't remember who. The words I do believe where "Lying, Crazy, or Delusional")   However, that isn't really important to the conversation and would take forever to search (perhaps I should start recording peoples comments here).  Any way, the point being, is do you not think that given evidential observation to the contrary; that we should re-evaluate our assumptions and inferences, in light of that new evidence?  I do think that reason is a valid epistemological tool, as well as inferences to the best explanation.  However if observation shows that to be incorrect, shouldn't  we incorporate that into our view (even if the observation is from others).  I would even go so far as to say, that I would even question my own observations, if a number of people had good contrary testimony, that I couldn't explain (and I don't think my friends are just playing a joke on me).

Testimony isn't evidence.