Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

Benny,

Thanks for the conversation,  in many things, our thinking is not all that far apart.  I appreciate, that you explain your rational, and wanted to expand a little bit, on what I meant, that I think this discussion bares a interesting twist on the burden of proof.  The "burden of proof" means that it is upon the one making the claim, to provide sufficient warrant, for their position.   Similarly "evidence" is defined as anything which is used to support an assertion.  Therefore, if testimony, is not evidence, then the burden of proof, would require that the claim be demonstrated to the person, in order to provide sufficient reason for another to believe.  And not just one person, but each and every time thereafter.  Without doing so, then you cannot support you claim.  

Now you gave an example earlier of someone producing cold fusion.  And as discussed, we would differ, in that I would only require good testimonial support, that they had done so (This would include multiple people, and also showing, that they where able to confirm the claim).  On the other hand, you required, that it need to be reproduced.  For me this is the difference, between showing that they did produce a certain effect, and knowing how they did it.  However,  as a general principle, I think that we need to consider this not only in some claims, but in all claims (where the principle fits) or justify our reason's for why the principle does not need apply in that case. Or we are accepting much without sufficient reason.

---

I think you are hung up on the philosophical niceties of what "proof" is or "evidence."  In the end, someone with an interest in asserting a claim must meet the standards of the one listening to it.  Whether someone accepts testimony depends on who's giving the testimony, the listener's perceptions of the teller's motivations, the degree to which the claimed ideas falls outside the listener's world view or personal knowledge, etc.

So if I took the testimony of a group of scientists as evidence of cold fusion, despite having no record of experiment or ability to reproduce the experimental results, what does this mean?  It means that the issue at hand is of little enough importance, or close enough to what I already believe, that I'm willing to accept that low standard of evidence.  It's acceptable only to the degree to which I can't be bothered to follow up in seeking a more substantial proof.

In general, though, I'd say much MUCH more harm is done by accepting testimony than by rejecting it.  How many lies have led to wrongful consequences?  How many bullshit attestations have led people to buy crystals instead of medicine?  How many Christian preachers have attested that the "devil made them" have sex with younger men, or that God told them they need a new private jet in order to carry out the work of God?

People say all kinds of shit, and call it "testimony," and you like us would immediately disregard 99% of it all.  So the rule of thumb is this-- testimonial evidence should be considered valueless, unless special circumstances establish its value.  And the LISTENER gets to decide when that is, not the teller.

Thanks Benny,

I don't think that we are as far a part, as it may seem.  I agree, I think that some of the issue is semantics, and what is meant by evidence.  I appreciate you explaining your view; it helps me to understand quite a bit.  In contrast, I think that evidence, is more the reason, that I am persuaded rather than the other way around of becoming evidence; because I am persuaded by it (at least I hope so).  I believe that persuasion is subjective, and what you may find appealing, I may not.  Reason and thus what is reasonable I think are objective, and exist whether or not anyone is swayed by it.   I can provide you with evidence, but I cannot make you be persuaded.   I can also wrestle with and admit evidence, even though I may not be convinced by it.  

Again, I'm not saying, that you trust every claim that is thrown your way.   I am skeptical..... I check things out.   And despite the many imagined motivations for me creating this thread, a primary reason, was because I don't just buy into the claim that testimony is not evidence.  I don't automatically dismiss it either, and wanted to discuss and test this claim.   I'm not cynical enough, to just dismiss 99% of testimony as B.S.  And humility prevents me, from thinking that I know it all, or can judge based on what I know.  But I do question, and more likely than not, look for collaborating evidence.