Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 22, 2016 at 11:27 pm (This post was last modified: October 22, 2016 at 11:45 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(October 22, 2016 at 9:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(October 22, 2016 at 5:18 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Do you accept the vaccination/autism anecdotes?
Yes, do you think that they did not receive vaccinations, or that they do not have autism. What part are you questioning?
Why are you pretending to not understand what brewer is asking you?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(October 22, 2016 at 10:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I did answer Rhythm, but do you have a specific question?
Not anywhere that I can see. And no, I'll let you follow up with the other unanswered questions posed to you before I add my own to the mix.
I believe that the response was something to the effect of; that I was going to make broad sweeping generalization in spite of evidence, and that was exactly what I was against here. There wasn't any details given, it was just a question if categorically if one was evidence and the other was not. I am against that type of concrete thinking.
(October 22, 2016 at 11:21 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Before this atrocity of equivocation goes any further, maybe we should take a look at what RoadRunner's looking for.
Anecdotes are never going to be accepted as evidence of anything, legal or otherwise. They are not evidence in any way, shape or form, nor are they meant to be.
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.
Testimony, on the other hand, can be used as evidence.
1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.
2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
3. open declaration or profession, as of faith.
4. Usually, testimonies. the precepts of God.
5. the Decalogue as inscribed on the two tables of the law, or the ark in which the tables were kept. Ex. 16:34; 25:16.
6. Archaic. a declaration of disapproval; protest.
Maybe you'd like to re-phrase the question RoadRunner since there really isn't such a thing as "anecdotal evidence." Even if we go with testimony, I've never heard of a conviction being handed down solely on the strength of witness testimony (please provide evidence of any claim to the contrary). Evidence is weightier than testimony and anecdotes aren't even that. They're stories for fucks sake. Many people use them to illustrate a point or as a teaching tool, but they're still only stories
I too would like to hear RoadRunner's thoughts on all the anecdotes (and even witness testimony) of alien abductions seeing as he merely dodged the question put to him by Rhythm.
I agree with you, and it's why I have been saying since the beginning, that I think that the use of anecdote (as I have found it used here at times) is awkward.
I don't have a specific example to look up (and don't think it would be that easy to google) as far as a conviction based only on witness testimony, however the following, gives many examples concerning the weight of testimony. http://randalrauser.com/2013/12/rd-miksa...testimony/
As to the testimony concerning alien's, I do think that some accounts can be explained, but there are some also, which do have a hint of credibility to them. There are some interesting parallels in abductions claims but most only have single witness support. I am somewhat skeptical.
(October 22, 2016 at 9:37 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes, do you think that they did not receive vaccinations, or that they do not have autism. What part are you questioning?
Why are you pretending to not understand what brewer is asking you?
If you are referring to the causation assumption, then I would say that studies have shown that it is not normative. It's also a good example of the correct usage of the phrase. I wouldn't hesitate to vaccinate against something deadly. I've even thought about the shingles vaccine. However normally I don't find the way the term has been used here, to be similar to this example and reasoning.
I apologize, I kind of got away from this thread. I've been working 12 hour days, and working on the house, on the weekends. With that, I'm not gong to quote anyone, because I realize that people may no longer have interest; but, I had a couple of closing thoughts on the conversation.
As to testimony being the weakest form of evidence, or that it was not preferred in historical and legal matters. I would ask for those saying this, to support their statements. Looking at historical method, it deals quite a bit with testimony and how to test one's witnesses. J. Warner Wallace, who was a quite successful homicide and cold case detective in Los Angeles, states that he has won cases with nothing but testimony evidence, or with no forensic evidence. Personally; I don't think that any category of evidence is stronger or weaker a priori. That the strength of the evidence, is based on how well it accounts for what happens, which in many cases, testimony can tell you a lot more than any other single piece of indirect evidence.
So this week, I was envisioning a scenario, where many of the arguments seemingly presented here come into play. I am at a casino, playing texas hold'em. I am slow playing my royal flush (which I have never seen dealt before). My opponent plays right to it, and I am able to build up quite a large pot. As the cards are turned over however, I am astonished when the dealer tells me, that I lost the hand. He goes on to talk about Bayes theorem and the odds against getting a royal flush. How about how we cannot trust what we perceive to see, and that it is far more likely, that I had a high card or maybe a pair. Multiple people affirm that I did indeed get a royal flush, but the dealer insist that we cannot know that without the casino scientist verifying that it did in fact take place. As he collects the cards, he explains that their resident scientist called in sick that day, and that I would have to come back tomorrow, so get a decision. When I return the next day, we are unable to repeat the hand, and they decide that a much more mundane explanation is more plausible. At the end of this imagined account, I am escorted out of building (likely in cuffs) and asked that I not return with such nonsense (and the abusive transactions which likely transpired after).
So, in this account, would I be wrong in believing what I saw, and what others testified to, and should I apologize to the dealer and casino?
You speak respectfully for the most part, so forgive me if I don't seem to respond in kind this post.
I think you are attempting to establish a kind of slippery slope argument-- "Well, SOME kinds of anecdotal evidence is found useful, so anecdotal evidence should always be considered. . . including anecdotes about Jesus."
You are questioning and explaining yourself, just for the record, I don't find that offensive at all.
To an extent, you would be correct here. And as someone said above, and I agreed with, anecdotes and testimony are different, and what I'm really speaking of is testimony. I only used anecdotes, because that is what I was seeing used (and I explained why) I would also agree, that not all testimony is equal. There are a number of things, that make testimony stronger or weaker, but what I am against, is asking for evidence, and then denying any evidence, on the grounds of a priori belief.
Quote:However, you are dealing in absolutes, when there's no requirement that the standards we hold for evidence must be absolute. It's not true that anecdotes either should or should not be accepted. It IS true that if you want to persuade people, you will have to meet THEIR bar for evidence.
Now here I would quibble, because the problem as I see it, is that you are talking about persuasion which is subjective, and different than providing evidence. I don't think that evidence ceases to be evidence, because you didn't provide it persuasive. A prosecutor, and the defending lawyer, are both going to provide evidence, for their opposing cases. And apart from a hung jury, they are going to find one more persuasive than the other. There is also insufficient evidence to consider. I'm not dealing in absolute's, and I'm willing to discuss the reasons why something should be rejected as evidence. With my experience here, I can get past the irrational absolutes, when dealing with the subject, to talk about detail.
Quote:If a Christian says to another Christian, "I felt the presence of the Lord in the room," then this assertion will almost for sure be unchallenged. That's not because your assertion is intrinsically valuable, but because another Christian is unlikely to challenge this kind of assertion.
If you say the same thing to me, I'm likely to demand that you describe in very specific terms what the Lord is and why you would attribute your feelings to His presence.
I agree, and wouldn't consider that very good evidence. And I think that you would be justified in your skepticism. This isn't to say that it isn't true, but alone, it is not very good evidence.
October 23, 2016 at 5:20 pm (This post was last modified: October 23, 2016 at 5:31 pm by bennyboy.)
(October 23, 2016 at 1:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Now here I would quibble, because the problem as I see it, is that you are talking about persuasion which is subjective, and different than providing evidence. I don't think that evidence ceases to be evidence, because you didn't provide it persuasive. A prosecutor, and the defending lawyer, are both going to provide evidence, for their opposing cases. And apart from a hung jury, they are going to find one more persuasive than the other. There is also insufficient evidence to consider. I'm not dealing in absolute's, and I'm willing to discuss the reasons why something should be rejected as evidence. With my experience here, I can get past the irrational absolutes, when dealing with the subject, to talk about detail.
Okay, let me make a little list of some of the factors I would consider:
1) Evidence is founded on a single philosophical principle: that there are multiple sentient beings, and that they experience an objective world. The evidence, then, must exclusively describe things and their properties at various times: "I saw a man. He walked along the top of a body of water." This is objective evidence. Note, however, that EVEN THEN, a person can be wrong-- maybe he didn't see a man, but rather a hologram. Maybe he didn't really walk on water-- maybe he walked on a submerged sand bar.
2) Related to (1), it cannot involve subjective interpretations of those descriptions: "A holy and spiritual man walked along the top of a body of water with God's help." This fails because the person is not actually describing only things and their properties, and is therefore not making an objective statement of fact.
3) With regard to credibility, evidence should be disregarded if there is a conflict of interest, and if the evidence cannot be reproduced. So a scientist who claims he produced cold fusion, but cannot prove so, or explain to someone else how to ALSO produce cold fusion, should be disregarded. His testimony is useless, since his personal interest in claiming he produced cold fusion is obvious.
Okay, so let's take the Christians. Millions of Christians will attest that their mood and mental state change at church, during prayer at home, or perhaps in dreams. They can honestly and accurately describe the sensations they have: they felt peace, they felt as though a mysterious presence were in the room, they felt suddenly inspired, etc. All these are fine. This is case (1) above.
Now let's say these Christians get excited, saying the Lord is real and has blessed them, and so on. It's fine if they want to believe that, but their ideas about God are not statements of fact, but of interpretation. Since those similar experiences could be differently attributed by Hindus or atheists, then the interpretations cannot serve as evidence of God. (Case 2). They are really only evidence that Christians sometimes have particular feelings (Case 1)
Finally, let's say that Christians knock on my door. They say they want me to think about Jesus' blessings, and invite me to attend church. If I ask how they know God is real, they will produce the Bible, will attest to their own personal experiences, and work very hard to demonstrate to me the "Truth" of God's existence, and his love for me personally. But there's a conflict of interest. Since I can see that they want me to attend the church, I can reasonably assume that they are saying all of those things in an effort to persuade me to go join their congregation, thereby indirectly increasing their power in the local community. (Case 3).
This is made obvious by people like Creflo Dollar, but I see it as well in much more modest individuals. They are congratulated by the church if they can bring in new members, especially if those members are wealthy, educated, popular, or otherwise valued members of the community. There's a social payoff, and therefore I can attribute the behavior to the desire for a payoff, much as I would for the "cold fusion" scientist's behavior.
In other words, I would disregard the entire Christian community's assertions about God, because ALL their assertions are based on interpretation, and because anyone will to go out of their way to bring me into the religion demonstrates a conflict of interest.
(October 23, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Anecdotal evidence is like kinky sex. Both are fine behind closed doors but neither will do in formal situations.
