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 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.
There is one difference between the two, and it's a doozy. Kinky sex does exist (granted at whatever level you consider is kinky), whereas anecdotal evidence does not.
Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron of a similar magnitude to "pacifist mass murderer". You're trying to shoehorn two completely incompatible concepts into one concept and they just will not go.
Even if the senses of the person subjectively tells them of their anecdote "This is evident" their perception is not of anything truly evident and their senses are simply mistaken.
(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.
There is one difference between the two, and it's a doozy. Kinky sex does exist (granted at whatever level you consider is kinky), whereas anecdotal evidence does not.
Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron of a similar magnitude to "pacifist mass murderer". You're trying to shoehorn two completely incompatible concepts into one concept and they just will not go.
It's evidence to the experiencer. It's bad evidence when used to convince others of some ultimate or important truth, but it's still evidence no matter how weak.
October 23, 2016 at 6:59 pm (This post was last modified: October 23, 2016 at 7:00 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 23, 2016 at 6:53 pm)Irrational Wrote:
(October 23, 2016 at 6:29 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: There is one difference between the two, and it's a doozy. Kinky sex does exist (granted at whatever level you consider is kinky), whereas anecdotal evidence does not.
Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron of a similar magnitude to "pacifist mass murderer". You're trying to shoehorn two completely incompatible concepts into one concept and they just will not go.
It's evidence to the experiencer. It's bad evidence when used to convince others of some ultimate or important truth, but it's still evidence no matter how weak.
If so:
Is all evidence necessarily epistemologically objective and if it is doesn't that make all evidence logically entail to constitute knowledge?
Well, at least this is within the philosophy subforum so my question is relevant [emoji106]
My opinion under hide tag:
I guess I consider "bad evidence" an oxymoron. "Bad evidence"="invalid evidence" and valid evidence is just actual evidence as opposed to non-evidence or anecdotal bullshit subjectively mistaken as "evident"
In short: It's not even evident to the person. Their judgement is simply mistaken about their perception.
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.
I would mostly agree. The evidence, is knowledge (which they can transfer to another) about what they experienced and observed. The interpretation of that, I could also consider evidence, but not nearly as strong, and is not incontrovertible. That is that it should be taken into consideration, but doesn't stand alone. For example, someone saying that they saw a ghost, is an interpretation, and doesn't really tell me much about what they saw (or at least what I envision may be drastically different, then what they had seen); more details would be required for me to make my own determination.
I think that it can be a fine line at times, between skepticism and seeking to follow the evidence where it leads. Are we asking questions, because there are other possibilities, which may not have been realized. Or are we trying to editorialize the evidence, and read into it, what we want, rather than letting it speak for itself. Someone brought up the miracle of the sun previously. A quick search, will reveal that there are those who said that the witnesses stories are not as a like, as others may have claimed. And then their is the explanation, that staring at the sun, can cause such distortions in vision, as where described. Here, I think that this adds to the account, and explains the evidence better. On the other end, at times it seems, that people are looking for any other answer other than the one they do not want to accept the evidence for.
Quote: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.
Here I disagree, I don't think that evidence needs to be reproducible or that a conflict of interest always is against evidence. If I where to produce evidence which shows that I did not commit the murder on trail for, I certainly have an interest in being shown as innocent, but it doesn't follow, that the evidence is invalidated because of that.
Also assumption of motivations I so think can be unhealthy and an impediment to truth. (should I assume that you are on king Tiberius's take and ignore your arguments? I certainly do agree, that we should be wary of possible wrong motivation, I think that it is normally better to go forward with a principle of charity, even if while being cautious of bad intent.
(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?
If you accepted their anecdotes are credible, do you believe that vaccinations cause autism?
Bumping forward. Never got a response.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
(October 27, 2016 at 8:28 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Bumping forward. Never got a response.
I had said... not normally
Not to me, at least not that I think. Which post? You did agree that there were vaccinations and autism.
So why not normally? They are certainly sincere. They are adamant. They are thousands if not more. They have well documented cases. They have found support in some of the health care community. When you combine all of their stories, that certainly makes for powerful testimony. What in their anecdotal evidence do you not find convincing or believable?
And could you compare/contrast the differences between your "not normally" position with this case and in other cases (your choice) where it would be "yes" (choose your own word if you find yes not fitting).
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
I certainly do agree, that we should be wary of possible wrong motivation, I think that it is normally better to go forward with a principle of charity, even if while being cautious of bad intent.
