(August 13, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(August 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I believe the point that Thump was making is that regardless of whether or not testimony is admissible in court, that's not how science works. Testimony and anecdote are not data, and when trying to determine whether or not something is factually true, testimony doesn't mean a damn thing, the evidence is what's important. The multiple of anecdote is still anecdote, and it isn't evidence or data.No, I believe you miss the point, we are talking about evidence, like it or not eye witness testimony is evidence. What you are talking about is proving the evidence, which is a whole different animal.
Wow, you really have a bizarrely skewed idea of what scientific evidence is. Again, try to leave the courtroom analogy behind. Evidence when talking about a factual or scientific claim does NOT include anecdote, I'm sorry it just doesn't. Just like the anecdotal claims of people that have seen Bigfoot is NOT evidence that Bigfoot exists, claims about miracles or faith healing or Jaysus are NOT evidence that any of those are true.
Eyewitness testimony can be admitted as evidence in a trial of someone's guilt in a courtroom, but we are not talking about a courtroom, we're talking about scientific fact.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson