Anecdotal Evidence

[robvalue]

Okay, I still don't know what you think science is. Or why any of this matters. So I'm giving up. You can't even give one single example of any relevance whatsoever, so I stick to my conclusion that this is about your religious beliefs only. If you don't even know what else it is about, I sure as hell don't.

I can informally get mundane knowledge through observations, yes. It's knowledge to me, but it's still dependent upon my memory and ability to accurately classify events. If I tell someone else, it's not knowledge to them. They may take my word on mundane matters. That's all they can do. They don't know anything. If they take my word that I've seen a ghost, they are an idiot. If I take the word of a thousand people all saying they have "seen a ghost", I have not gained any knowledge. I've succumbed to flawed evidence. And what use is my conclusion? Still don't even know what a ghost is, what it does, or what I can possibly do about it. Useless.

I'm sceptical enough of my own observations to realise that if I think I saw a ghost, most likely I saw no such thing. My memory and judgement are not foolproof. Nor do I have any actual definition or criteria for what is and isn't a ghost. I'm going on emotion and intuition. Not reliable.

[bennyboy]

Here's a question I have: the weight of contrary anecdotes. Okay, there will be some Christians who affirm their faith in anecdotes they call testimony. But there are also many, many people who sincerely looked for faith, for God, for spiritual benefit, and failed. Is there testimony to be considered as evidence against God?

[Expired]

Here's a question I have: the weight of contrary anecdotes.  Okay, there will be some Christians who affirm their faith in anecdotes they call testimony.  But there are also many, many people who sincerely looked for faith, for God, for spiritual benefit, and failed.  Is there testimony to be considered as evidence against God?

No, definitely not, they obviously just didn't look hard enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

I only asked you whether or not you found the thousands of alien abduction anecdotes credible.  If you considered them evidence.  Obviously, you don't, but realize that it would be difficult to maintain the charade after acknowledging that.

You won't get an answer either, if you keep trying to talk for me....

Oh..I'm so -very- sorry. You're absolutely right.  So you do think that those anecdotes are credible, then, that they're evidence? 



Try this. -You- aren't going to get an answer if you can't consider and discuss the subject frankly and openly. At least, no answer that you didn't already possess. You already know both why and that anecdotes are not credible in and of themselves, no matter how many people tell them, that they're not evidence. I don't have the patience these other posters have for such transparent bullshit. I'm sure you'll have something to say about that, in ways that you have nothing to say about alien abduction anecdotes.

[RoadRunner79]

The reason it has come up, may be because of my religious beliefs.  But I am really only trying to discuss this particular form of reasoning about knowledge.  I would also disagree, that it is necessarily weak in nature.... but we can never get to that point.

I don't think that any motivations whether real or allusioned to by an interlocutor have any effect on the reasoning (neither do the consequences of a paticular case).   This is about the general, not the specific.

To me, it's pretty simple.  When you are taking evidence that cannot be confirmed (like by another ballistics expert for example), then you have to determine whether the evidence by anecdote has sufficient value to be taken into consideration.  There's also, and this has been mentioned and I think it's crucially important-- the issue of setting the standard.

I'm not saying that all testimony is equal. For example, if the testimony consisted of one person, saying only "I saw a ghost", that really does not tell you what they saw. It tells you what they think they saw. I also do believe that there are standards and indicators that historical or investigative experts do look for. I also would agree, that these could be refined more.

The standard is set by a number of factors-- the importance of the thing being asked about, the degree to which the listener resists the fact being asserted by the anecdote, the level of motivation of the anecdote-teller, and so on.  If someone says they saw cold fusion in a lab, but the data was lost in a fire, I'd be REALLY suspicious, and would flat-out tell them to fuck off until they can show real experimental data-- that's because cold fusion is an issue of HUGE importance, and would be a game-changer if confirmed to be done under reasonable conditions.

Even more important is when someone tells me something that is CONTRARY to facts I already consider known.  I know that things fall down when I let them go.  If you told me that once, on a particularly stormy Friday evening, an apple fell UP, I'd file that away as 99% bullshit and 1% mystery.  So if you, for example, say a man has walked on water, I'd want to inspect the site and look for a ledge or glass platform under its surface.  I'd want him to reproduce the act in conditions under my control.  I wouldn't say-- thousands of people say they saw him, so he must really have done what they say he did.

And that is where I differ. Although if I could demand they take me on a lunar landing, to see for myself that it is possible, that may be interesting. But I don't think that I need to see for myself. I do often look for what other people who have witnessed the claim in question do say though. I also look at who, and what they say. For instance, if the people in your cold fusion example, subsequently when broke (as well as having a ruined reputation), after the fire; would that change your opinion of the account? Also, I would think that there testimony of what the observed, would need to contain details of why they had thought that cold fusion was obtained.

However, I don't think that a priori belief is a reason to reject these accounts. A lot of the arguments here, I think give justification to some young earth or evolution views which simply state, that cannot happen, regardless of evidence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

During WWII the US fighter pilots in the Pacific reported "kills" that amounted to just over 2.5 times the number of aircraft the Japanese had.

[RoadRunner79]

Okay, I still don't know what you think science is. Or why any of this matters. So I'm giving up. You can't even give one single example of any relevance whatsoever, so I stick to my conclusion that this is about your religious beliefs only. If you don't even know what else it is about, I sure as hell don't.

I can informally get mundane knowledge through observations, yes. It's knowledge to me, but it's still dependent upon my memory and ability to accurately classify events. If I tell someone else, it's not knowledge to them. They may take my word on mundane matters. That's all they can do. They don't know anything. If they take my word that I've seen a ghost, they are an idiot. If I take the word of a thousand people all saying they have "seen a ghost", I have not gained any knowledge. I've succumbed to flawed evidence. And what use is my conclusion? Still don't even know what a ghost is, what it does, or what I can possibly do about it. Useless.

I'm sceptical enough of my own observations to realise that if I think I saw a ghost, most likely I saw no such thing. My memory and judgement are not foolproof. Nor do I have any actual definition or criteria for what is and isn't a ghost. I'm going on emotion and intuition. Not reliable.

So your normal escapes then....

"I don't even know what the means"... and "why does this even matter"   I am surprised how often you can be against something when you don't know what it even is.

As I stated before, in legal and historical matters, testimony is considered evidence, and I don't feel that you gave much of any reason to change that.   I am however amazed that some of the people here, can function, with such flawed observation and memory of reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, so, alien abduction anecdotes are historical, and totally legit in a legal setting.

[bennyboy]

However, I don't think that a priori belief is a reason to reject these accounts.  A lot of the arguments here, I think give justification to some young earth or evolution views which simply state, that cannot happen, regardless of evidence.

With regard to evolution, I'm probably a little on your side. Evolution is a lot more abstract than people make it out to be. As for young Earth views-- I think evolution very much ties in with that, doesn't it? I mean, if we know human history is 5,000 years old, and we have many, many apparent human precursors, we have to infer that the Earth is a lot older than 5,000 years-- unless they are all separate species.

But there are logical inconsistencies with the Biblical account-- like vestigial organs in humans that are functional organs in human precursors, that make us ask-- why do humans have these useless features, if they were designed (presumably perfectly) by a creator? If I was designing new organisms from scratch, I wouldn't do that.

[Mister Agenda]

The reason it has come up, may be because of my religious beliefs.  But I am really only trying to discuss this particular form of reasoning about knowledge.  I would also disagree, that it is necessarily weak in nature.... but we can never get to that point.

I don't think that any motivations whether real or allusioned to by an interlocutor have any effect on the reasoning (neither do the consequences of a paticular case).   This is about the general, not the specific.

To me, it's pretty simple.  When you are taking evidence that cannot be confirmed (like by another ballistics expert for example), then you have to determine whether the evidence by anecdote has sufficient value to be taken into consideration.  There's also, and this has been mentioned and I think it's crucially important-- the issue of setting the standard.

The standard is set by a number of factors-- the importance of the thing being asked about, the degree to which the listener resists the fact being asserted by the anecdote, the level of motivation of the anecdote-teller, and so on.  If someone says they saw cold fusion in a lab, but the data was lost in a fire, I'd be REALLY suspicious, and would flat-out tell them to fuck off until they can show real experimental data-- that's because cold fusion is an issue of HUGE importance, and would be a game-changer if confirmed to be done under reasonable conditions.

Even more important is when someone tells me something that is CONTRARY to facts I already consider known.  I know that things fall down when I let them go.  If you told me that once, on a particularly stormy Friday evening, an apple fell UP, I'd file that away as 99% bullshit and 1% mystery.  So if you, for example, say a man has walked on water, I'd want to inspect the site and look for a ledge or glass platform under its surface.  I'd want him to reproduce the act in conditions under my control.  I wouldn't say-- thousands of people say they saw him, so he must really have done what they say he did.

Right, thousands of people see magicians doing miraculous-seeming tricks all the time; that in no way means that the illusions were real because thousands of people saw them. And remember, magicians had no 'code' of being upfront about their trickery thousands of years ago. A few parlor tricks could easily be parlayed into forming a new cult back then. I'm not saying that's what happened, just that it could have...and we have no way of knowing what the actual case was.