Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

I believe this is an error in use, of the Occam's Razor.  The difficulty, and I believe what was shown in this particular call, is that background knowledge varies (it's subjective), and previous beliefs should not be the measuring stick of new evidence (especially if you are going to insert lying, mistake, or delusional and the like).   This is good, if you want to hold to the your beliefs and ignore evidence (but then it would seem difficult or at least hypocritical to criticize another for doing the same thing).

---

The formation of new opinion must always be checked by prior knowledge, else it is based on nothing but groundless supposition which is itself irrational.  You can't make a rational leap based on what you don't know.  Therefore the acquisition of new knowledge will always be conservative.  This is only sensible.  What are you suggesting, that one should depend upon an affirmative endorsement of evidence that one isn't qualified to understand?  

---

According to Wikipedia:

You may also find simpler in place of fewest assumptions, but I find that this is often misunderstood, in that simpler is better, even if it does not account for all the facts.   Therefore, I do prefer the above quote from WikiP.

The most similar claim made by Occam himself was

or don't add more than what is needed.  I do find that this shows where the simpler and fewest assumptions terms come into the picture in the above definitions.  

I could see this as applying, in that, as you add collaborating testimony, then it is required to make more assumptions, in adding lying, mistaken, or in error.  And I would agree, that this does often apply the testimony of science.   Although I may caution against merely assuming this, and fore going checking out what others say, simply because someone make a claim of science.

---

I think you're misunderstanding the application of Occam's razor here.  Whenever a hypothesis as endorsed by testimony requires the assumption of unevidenced components to one's model of reality, they automatically acquire a burden of unjustified necessities which is not so with the lie, mistake, or error explanations.  So it becomes a straightforward Bayesian choice of alternatives among competing hypotheses in which the hypothesis elucidated by testimony loses.  So, no, I think you are in error here.
 

I do agree, and I'm not saying, that we should fore go our background knowledge. But we also need to examine where there are assumptions are in that background knowledge as well, and consider that we may be incorrect.

The problem I have, is that in this instance the caller implied much the same as you are here. If we can just dismiss evidence without reason; as lying, mistake, or error in this way; then I think it gives credence to a number of groups, which I think we would both consider to be out in left field. I don't think that you can criticize the method in one instance, and endorse it in another; without being hypocritical. I have even seen some here, who said they would deny evidence they had observed for themselves, using much the same words as you do here.