Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

So are you saying; that I shouldn't believe what scientists tell me, unless I can see it for my self?

Ding ding ding ding ding.  In case you didn't know this, science is -built- on this very statement.  That's what demonstration, replication, and peer review are all about.  Science does not ask for or require -anyone's- belief.  If you think that science is "just what some scientists told me" then you're out there on the deep end.  Realizing this won;t pull you back from the "testimony" song and dance, ofc, you'll just find another way to keep bullshitting us and yourself...because you just can't handle the fact that your silly little beliefs are not the same thing, that they're not even on the same level.

To my understanding, peer review doesn't involve seeing the experiment for ones self.   And if you follow the journal Nature, you may find that there is a growing awareness of a repeatability problem within science. 

Now I think that you have a misunderstanding of the roles of these things in science, we could discuss it, but I'll just wait for you to provide evidence for you claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

Evidence, now wait a minute, I thought that testimony was evidence?  You have mine.  Having trouble deciding whether or not to accept it, are you?   

Meanwhile, your ignorance and transparency  -is- evident. You've been building that case, yourself, for 30 some odd pages. I'm convinced, good job.

[RoadRunner79]

Evidence, now wait a minute, I thought that testimony was evidence?  You have mine.  Having trouble deciding whether or not to accept it, are you?  

It may be evidence to what you think, but I would like some corroboration.  For one my experience is different.   Second, if I ask for evidence, and you give me testimony, then you are only proving my point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your experience of what is different?  Is it your experience that science is just what some scientist says?  Do you -actually- have any experience with science?  

You're the one that isn't accepting testimony, and asking for evidence.  Whose point, again,  do you think that proves, lol?  

Deep end.

[RoadRunner79]

Your experience of what is different?  Is it your experience that science is just what some scientist says?  Do you -actually- have any experience with science?  

You're the one that isn't accepting testimony, and asking for evidence.  Whose point, again,  do you think that proves, lol?  

Deep end.

Ok... I'm not getting into a battle of sophism and rhetoric.    If you have something to add about your position and reasons justifying it, then please continue.
My point is, that if you do not accept the reports of the study, then those studies about testimony, and memory are not evidence for anyone who did not witness them.   Do you disagree?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't accept -anything- based upon "testimony", I'm not dense enough to do that. We've all had the experience of both being and watching others be, wrong. Genuinely, earnestly, honestly.........wrong.

Call my response sophistry if you like....you probably don't understand the origin of that word anymore than you understand science. You just consider it to be a convenient insult, and it's not like you have anything else to say. / shrugs

[bennyboy]

Ding ding ding ding ding.  In case you didn't know this, science is -built- on this very statement.  That's what demonstration, replication, and peer review are all about.  Science does not ask for or require -anyone's- belief.  If you think that science is "just what some scientists told me" then you're out there on the deep end.  Realizing this won;t pull you back from the "testimony" song and dance, ofc, you'll just find another way to keep bullshitting us and yourself...because you just can't handle the fact that your silly little beliefs are not the same thing, that they're not even on the same level.

To my understanding, peer review doesn't involve seeing the experiment for ones self.   And if you follow the journal Nature, you may find that there is a growing awareness of a repeatability problem within science. 

Now I think that you have a misunderstanding of the roles of these things in science, we could discuss it, but I'll just wait for you to provide evidence for you claims.

Peer review involves as complete a disclosure as possible about how information was collected: how an experiment was done, and so on.  And a quality scientist will always try to mention what confounding variables might potentially have thrown off the results.

The value of science is very much shown by its failures.  When bad science (for example, scares about power lines, MSG or vaccines) permeates into the mainstream, it's because an uncritical media has picked up the CONCLUSIONS of an experiment, without first attempting to validate the process by which the conclusions were arrived at.  They call it science merely because a scientist has done it, not because the scientist in question has actually shown that he's done good science.

As for Nature, I don't know it, but I would certainly agree that repeatability is a problem is some areas.  You cannot, for example, repeat the smell that original diggers reported upon opening King Tut's tomb or whatever, and must take verbal reports at face value.

And here's the most important thing of all: individual scientists cheat. Groups of scientists, even whole communities, fail in their interpretations sometimes. However, new scientists must always look for holes, test weak points, develop new ideas, or they'll run out of things to do. Compare this to an institution which does NOT encourage criticism-- i.e. religious institution. How often, in Sunday school, are children encouraged to determine whether Jesus walking on water was a miracle or maybe just an illusion or a trick? How often are they encouraged to consider whether early civilizations were qualified to determine that God was real?

Never. Never, ever. These are mentioned, and immediately "remedied" by rote. "If the evil atheists say X, you can easily just respond Y."

[Cyberman]

Got a spare ten minutes, RR? I promise you it's worth it:

[brewer]

Got a spare ten minutes, RR? I promise you it's worth it:

Is that Myth Busters at 1:29? Too Good!!!!

Edit: Yep, that was them. Showed up again at 2:18.

[RoadRunner79]

To my understanding, peer review doesn't involve seeing the experiment for ones self.   And if you follow the journal Nature, you may find that there is a growing awareness of a repeatability problem within science. 

Now I think that you have a misunderstanding of the roles of these things in science, we could discuss it, but I'll just wait for you to provide evidence for you claims.

Peer review involves as complete a disclosure as possible about how information was collected: how an experiment was done, and so on.  And a quality scientist will always try to mention what confounding variables might potentially have thrown off the results.

I would agree with your description of peer review.  I just don't see it demonstrating the "must see to believe" attitude or the connection to this discussion however.

The value of science is very much shown by its failures.  When bad science (for example, scares about power lines, MSG or vaccines) permeates into the mainstream, it's because an uncritical media has picked up the CONCLUSIONS of an experiment, without first attempting to validate the process by which the conclusions were arrived at.  They call it science merely because a scientist has done it, not because the scientist in question has actually shown that he's done good science.

Ok.... I don't agree, that it is only media and such though.   Science has it's dogma and cultural bias's too.   And sometimes they can be difficult to surmount.   Not everything is black and white and certainty levels vary.

As for Nature, I don't know it, but I would certainly agree that repeatability is a problem is some areas.  You cannot, for example, repeat the smell that original diggers reported upon opening King Tut's tomb or whatever, and must take verbal reports at face value.

I think that example is a little simple (although not all science is repeatable; ie investigative sciences)  And part of the problem is pressure to get published.   It's also difficult to get money to redo existing and well liked research.   For your Reference here are the articles I was referring to.  
http://www.nature.com/news/reality-check...ty-1.19961
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scienti...ty-1.19970

And here's the most important thing of all: individual scientists cheat.  Groups of scientists, even whole communities, fail in their interpretations sometimes.  However, new scientists must always look for holes, test weak points, develop new ideas, or they'll run out of things to do.  Compare this to an institution which does NOT encourage criticism-- i.e. religious institution.  How often, in Sunday school, are children encouraged to determine whether Jesus walking on water was a miracle or maybe just an illusion or a trick?  How often are they encouraged to consider whether early civilizations were qualified to determine that God was real?

Never.  Never, ever.  These are mentioned, and immediately "remedied" by rote.  "If the evil atheists say X, you can easily just respond Y."

I disagree with this last part and think that you have a biased and limited view.   I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I disagree with your absolute statements entirely.   J. Warner Wallace and a number of other apologist I listen to, encourage exactly the opposite.  But this is getting off topic for this thread.  I'm not against science at all.   I think that the method and philosophy are very good,  and often because of the nature of what is studied, provides some of the best evidence available within the nature of it's claims (as close to certainty in some cases as we can get).   I just reject scientism, which I suppose comes off the wrong way at times (although I do enjoy getting those folks riled up .  I would also point out, that in this thread, that I get more of a don't question vibe, then reasons why testimony is not evidence, or only evidence for the mundane, or evidence except for when it makes my position look bad, or whatever denomination you hold.