Anecdotal Evidence

[Sal]

I only read anecdotal evidence as personal experience. Unless there's something quantifiable going on, if it's one person or tens of thousands of people, it's still either one persons personal experience or that of tens of thousands of people.

[robvalue]

The flaw of reasoning is that if lots of people report something vaguely similar, there must be some truth behind it. Sure, there's probably a reason behind it. But that reason could be any number of things. People are very easily fooled, especially when they expect things to be a certain way.

For example, loads of people report seeing ghosts. They can't all be wrong, right?

Sure they can. For one thing, what the fuck is a ghost? Who is an authority on saying what is and isn't a ghost? Until there is a criteria, no one is. Just saying "What else could it have been?" or "I know a ghost when I see it" is not good enough. Sorry. You saw something, sure. You've heard of ghosts. Your mind made the connection. It doesn't meant you're right. In fact, it's extremely likely you are wrong, because there's so many mundane explanations for why you might think you've seen one.

Of course, loads of people are going to make these kind of reports. It doesn't make them validated, because everyone has heard of ghosts so it's actually to be expected.

When you're dealing with history, it's a soft science. You can never have all the information. You draw conclusions as best you can from the available evidence. If the evidence isn't very good, then too bad. Getting in a flap about it doesn't make the evidence better. Maybe it convinces some people, that's fine. Notice how almost all religious claims are dealing with the past. What's happening now, exactly? Fuck all, that's what. If anything was going on back then, it's done now.

[bennyboy]

My view is that mundane anecdotes are more likely reliable for a different reason.  If I'm trying to convince you that the Okanagan region in British Columbia has really nice peaches, I'll probably just state so.  If you don't believe me, then I'll shrug and change the subject.

So I'd recommend this as a second measure of validity-- the more the person tries to convince you that their anecdote is real, the less likely it is to be true, since the person obviously has a personal motivation for getting you to believe.

I don't know if I would agree with that.   Would you apply the same standard of reasoning to other evidence?

Absolutely.  If you can determine that someone is highly motivated, perhaps by the possibility of personal benefit, in pushing forward an anecdote, then you'd be quite right in questioning its validity.  It's quite easy to think of examples where a conflict of interests prevents someone's anecdote from being considered as valid.

[The Grand Nudger]

The flaw of reasoning is that if lots of people report something vaguely similar, there must be some truth behind it. Sure, there's probably a reason behind it. But that reason could be any number of things. 

-snipped for brevity.

Directly to that bit above.....people often see anecdotal accounts of ghosts from many people as evidence of ghosts, and miss the fact that the common thread in all the anecdotes...is that human beings are telling the tale.  If we wanted to use ghoist anecdotes as evidence of something......it;s evidence of a common -human- tick, not of common -ghostly- interaction.

[downbeatplumb]

If one person reports something odd, it's an anecdote. If 1,000 people report something odd, it's qualitative evidence.

No, its an oft repeated anecdote.
30,000 people reported seeing this, and yet it remains utter bollocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g--JhHe40EM

[RoadRunner79]

I noticed this key phrase RR:

You'd accept anecdotes which go against your positions "if you don't have reason to doubt them".

Therein lies the problem. I'm not suggesting it's just you with this problem, it is perfectly natural to be more suspicious and critical of evidence contrary to held beliefs. I do it too, I have to actively police against it. The fact that they are just anecdotes is reason to doubt them, if it's something extremely unusual. That is my position. Not reason to totally ignore them, but enough for reasonable doubt. Enough, quite possibly, to investigate further. Especially if you're going to base any sort of important decisions on the result, as I covered in my scepticism video.

But I would wager you would pretty much always find a reason to doubt such anecdotes, if they demonstrated something that would nullify your religious position. Would you ever honestly abandon your religious views based on a big pile of anecdotes? It's a serious question. Imagine there are 1,000 accounts all corroborating that God is in fact Allah. Or God turned up and destroyed himself. Or God announced he is evil. Would you ever believe any of those things just based on verbal/written accounts? My guess is that the first reason to doubt them would be, "Why are they saying this? Do they have an ulterior motive?". And then, "Are they mistaken, or projecting their previous beliefs, and fell foul of manipulation or mass hysteria?" Or, "That can't be true." And of course, "Are these even really 1,000 different people?" To make the point, if I handed you 1,000 accounts about something, all apparently written by different people, would you ever believe it? Or would you always assume I'm winding you up?

Other forms of evidence are going to be the same.... If I have reason to doubt the evidence, then I need to resolve those reasons.   Arguing from incredulity is not a valid reason however.  Also, it is not always black and white, sometimes I may not be able to resolve all doubt and sometimes or I may just need to hold something in tension.  There is a reason, that court rooms instruct people to judge based beyond reasonable doubt, and not certain doubt.  

A difference which I nuanced to, earlier, was a difference in what you mean by testable.   I got the feeling, that you mean only scientific repeatable tests.   This would exclude history, many of the historical sciences, and a number of other things from evidence and what we can know.   If that is the case, then I disagree.   Yes, if it is repeatable, and testable in this manner, then that is great.   I can see it for my self, and not have to trust others. In matters of history however, this is also indirect evidence which requires interpretation.   I can't even have evidence that I was born using this criteria.  And also many of the problems of perception that people bring up in regards to witness testimony still apply.  

As to your question about opposing evidence.  Yes, I cannot in intellectual honesty all of the sudden say, that this is not evidence now, because it doesn't agree with my prior beliefs.  It cannot be evidence and not evidence, under similar  circumstances and in the same way.   Again, it is a little different if you have two different lines of evidence which oppose each other.   They cannot both be true.  And even within testimony, there can be things which make a testimony stronger or weaker.  However I am after truth, so if the evidence point to something being more likely, then I will abandon by beliefs (I have done so a number of times in the past).

Thank you for your replies, you've been reasonable with me in this thread and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to inspire thought. If your answer is that yes, you really would abandon your beliefs based on the same level of anecdotal evidence which you think supports them, then fair enough. I will take you at your word.

You as well.... I like a good discussion, even if we can't come to an agreement.  

I do know, that I have issues when someone is giving me the run around, or not discussing or listening.   I tend to respond in kind;  I know it's something that while I have improved greatly, still need to work on.

[downbeatplumb]

History is something that often needs to be taken with a pinch a salt. There is rather a lot of hagiography and outright lies that sneak into historical texts especially in regard to Christianity whose medieval writings are all a tissue of stupid lies mixed with extreme violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography

And much of what was written about Roman emperors were written by the equivalent of fox news trying to shock.

And the Roman pope told the masses that he scared off Attila the Hun with miracles. A Hun source says he paid Attilla.

However unlike the bible, some of history does contain a kernel of truth so is worth prising out from the lies boasts and speculation.

[RoadRunner79]

The flaw of reasoning is that if lots of people report something vaguely similar, there must be some truth behind it. Sure, there's probably a reason behind it. But that reason could be any number of things. People are very easily fooled, especially when they expect things to be a certain way.

For example, loads of people report seeing ghosts. They can't all be wrong, right?

Sure they can. For one thing, what the fuck is a ghost? Who is an authority on saying what is and isn't a ghost? Until there is a criteria, no one is. Just saying "What else could it have been?" or "I know a ghost when I see it" is not good enough. Sorry. You saw something, sure. You've heard of ghosts. Your mind made the connection. It doesn't meant you're right. In fact, it's extremely likely you are wrong, because there's so many mundane explanations for why you might think you've seen one.

Of course, loads of people are going to make these kind of reports. It doesn't make them validated, because everyone has heard of ghosts so it's actually to be expected.

When you're dealing with history, it's a soft science. You can never have all the information. You draw conclusions as best you can from the available evidence. If the evidence isn't very good, then too bad. Getting in a flap about it doesn't make the evidence better. Maybe it convinces some people, that's fine. Notice how almost all religious claims are dealing with the past. What's happening now, exactly? Fuck all, that's what. If anything was going on back then, it's done now.

The content of the testimony is also important. It is not the conclusion that is evidence, but the transfer of information about what was seen and experienced. In the majority of UFO sightings, what was seen can be explained. However this doesn't give one license to read into or modify the evidence, to come to their desired conclusion.

[robvalue]

Sure, yes. I've never given you the run around, not intentionally. I try and have serious discussion. If you've interpreted what I've said that way, that would explain your behaviour towards most of my posts lately. It's why I've often given up taking to you. I apologize if it has seemed that way. I can't deny I'm sometimes sarcastic, when I'm dealing with a point that I consider to be blatant, for comedic purposes. This isn't meant to be anything serious. Like I said, I have zero emotional investment in this, absolutely none. I don't care. God could turn up right now, and besides scientific interest, he can run along again.

There is a big problem with what you've just said above. You're saying anecdotes become more likely to be true, as their content becomes further removed from reality; at least once you've passed the point of the extremely mundane. I find this to be entirely backwards. The more outlandish the anecdote, the more likely it is that the person is mistaken.

This leads to one of two other key points I forgot to mention.

(1) An anecdote only ever tells you what a person believes happened. It can never tell you what actually happened. They can be as truthful and accurate as they like, but it will always be their interpretation of events. And when those events become more and more fantastical, our ability to accurately relay them will reduce. It's not the slightest bit unusual that someone might think they've seen something that a sceptic would consider undemonstrated by science. It's not surprising, at all. It is always going to be exceedingly less likely that this time, this time in particular, they really did experience it, and managed to do so accurately, in spite of science not even knowing what the fuck could be happening. The tendency to say "they can't all be wrong, this one is believable" is going to correlate highly with pre held beliefs, in my opinion. How do you pick them apart? Even the most reliable, truthful person can be mistaken. It's not even about that. That's a common mistake. Lots of people "saw the same thing"? Again, there are plenty of simple explanations, which can't simply be discarded because you like the conclusion. Not if you're taking evidence seriously. Yes, they can all be wrong, and it's not even surprising if they are. Not all lying, but wrong. Also, be careful with "you can't prove it isn't"; the argument from ignorance. An irrelevant statement revealing presuppositions. I'm not "allowing" any anecdotal evidence with all these objections? Quite right, I'm not, when it comes to the extraordinary, whether it lines up with my beliefs or not. I'm simply relaying how things work (in my opinion).

(2) How do you handle discrepancies? Take for example your religion. You have what you consider to be adequate anecdotes to support your beliefs. Then you receive anecdotes of the same quantity and quality which disprove your beliefs. They both weigh roughly the same, after all has been taken into account. What do you do? At the very best, you're looking to put one set of accounts a nose in front of the other. What good is that? Anecdotes are useless because they don't clear this up, ever. You can burrow around all you like looking for "reliability" and so forth, but at the end of the day, people are fallible. Anecdotes are not testable. They need other supporting evidence, or they are basically useless, when dealing with the extraordinary. Mundane history is not the same as extraordinary history. If you would say I don't get to define what is extraordinary, you would be right. But if you consider the stuff that goes on in the bible for example as not extraordinary, then we're really never going to agree on anything. That's just the New Testament. Savvy people won't even bother with the Old Testament, which is so completely obviously a load of rubbish.

With history in general, if you have competing evidence of equal strength and nothing to test, all you can say is that the result is unclear. This doesn't support any position. However, testimony that includes outlandish explanations is itself suspect. You would normally, I hope, treat less favourably a report that includes angels and such. And if the competing conclusions for an event are something mundane against something extraordinary, it's only logical to favour the former. Most of the time, that's what it will be, everything else being equal. People are just not reliable enough to alter this. Why would you make an exception to this rule? When it lines up with your own beliefs. That is the trap waiting for everyone.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Sure, yes. I've never given you the run around, not intentionally. I try and have serious discussion. If you've interpreted what I've said that way, that would explain your behaviour towards most of my posts lately. It's why I've often given up taking to you. I apologize if it has seemed that way. I can't deny I'm sometimes sarcastic, when I'm dealing with a point that I consider to be blatant, for comedic purposes. This isn't meant to be anything serious. Like I said, I have zero emotional investment in this, absolutely none. I don't care. God could turn up right now, and besides scientific interest, he can run along again.

---

There is a big problem with what you've just said above. You're saying anecdotes become more likely to be true, as their content becomes further removed from reality; at least once you've passed the point of the extremely mundane. I find this to be entirely backwards. The more outlandish the anecdote, the more likely it is that the person is mistaken.

I am not saying that at all.... What I did say, and perhaps you misunderstood, is that if I'm making something up, that I tend to keep it simple, and lacking details.  I am going to go with something that is more easily believed.   However; I wouldn't say that something is more likely true, because it is not the norm.  Though something that is difficult to believe will likely have more pressure to change the story.  How do you support that a more outlandish anecdote is more likely mistaken?

(1) An anecdote only ever tells you what a person believes happened. It can never tell you what actually happened. They can be as truthful and accurate as they like, but it will always be their interpretation of events. And when those events become more and more fantastical, our ability to accurately relay them will reduce. It's not the slightest bit unusual that someone might think they've seen something that a sceptic would consider undemonstrated by science. It's not surprising, at all. It is always going to be exceedingly less likely that this time, this time in particular, they really did experience it, and managed to do so accurately, in spite of science not even knowing what the fuck could be happening. The tendency to say "they can't all be wrong, this one is believable" is going to correlate highly with pre held beliefs, in my opinion. How do you pick them apart? Even the most reliable, truthful person can be mistaken. It's not even about that. That's a common mistake. Lots of people "saw the same thing"? Again, there are plenty of simple explanations, which can't simply be discarded because you like the conclusion. Not if you're taking evidence seriously. Yes, they can all be wrong, and it's not even surprising if they are. Not all lying, but wrong. Also, be careful with "you can't prove it isn't"; the argument from ignorance. An irrelevant statement revealing presuppositions. I'm not "allowing" any anecdotal evidence with all these objections? Quite right, I'm not, when it comes to the extraordinary, whether it lines up with my beliefs or not. I'm simply relaying how things work (in my opinion).

I would agree, that anyone can be mistaken, and that everything (even science) is an interpretation of events.   This is inescapable! It doesn't change how we can know things, and unless you want to advocate a non-viable hyper-skepticism of everything has to be absolutely certain; I don't see what your argument is here.   You again make the statement, that "when those events become more and more fantastical, our ability to accurately relay them will reduce."  What is this based on?  It also does seem to pre-suppose that the event was out of the ordinary, and then deny that it is (this is incoherent).  What is your reasoning, that accuracy diminishes in this way?  I can understand that in such a case, the majority of one's attention may be focused on the un-usual and that out lying details may be less accurate.  The mind can only focus a certain amount at a time.  Science is a very good thing, but it is not the only thing.  I am not pitting science against anything here.   However to use science where science does not or cannot make a statement is wrong.  Events where happening long before modern formal science understood them.  And I would be willing to wager, that events are still happening, that science cannot explain.   These things don't all of the sudden become reality; when and only when, they are acknowledged by a person (or persons) in a lab coat.   There doesn't need to be a scientific inquiry in order for something to be true, and I would submit, that someone seeing something is pretty good evidence that it did happen.  

You say that lot's of people can see the same thing, and can be wrong.   I can agree.   They can also be correct (the question is why is one correct and the other not... do we have reason to believe one over the other)  A lot of people can believe the same thing (and for bad reasons); which also they may be correct or incorrect.  What I am seeing, is that you are categorically denying the evidence for anything you do not wish to believe, and then disparaging them for not supplying evidence.   I think that you are also mis-using the argument from ignorance.  Actually your are imploring it.   You are not making an argument but asking for others to prove your belief wrong.   Not only that, but you insist, that anything that would prove you wrong must be mistaken (and without reason).   I believe that you have said previously, that even if you have seen the evidence for yourself, that you would not believe it.   I'm a bit skeptical, that even if scientist would confirm the evidence, that you would not just dismiss it as pseudo-science.  I don't think that it is about evidence for you, based on your statements.

Now, I am only talking about this as a general principle here.  I'm not attempting to make any particular argument for a certain event.  I'm also not taking any form of absolute position, and believe that we need to consider all the evidence in any given situation.  If we are making a claim, then the reasons for that claim lies on the one making it.  One may simply not be persuaded, but then the position of skepticism is not making any statement of true or false.  As I stated previously, I think that your definition of anecdote is a bit unusual.  I understand your stance on it being testable (falsifiable) and largely agree; however I don't think that the only means of knowing reality is through scientific repeatable testing.  Not all sciences even fit this criteria.  I don't find the argument from incredulity to be very convincing against evidence.