Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

I may have responded to someone else.

I don't think that there is anything non-convincing or unbelievable in the anecdotes.   However cherry picking data, or making a hasty generalization about what is normal based a  limited accounts is not correct either.

This is your idea of an adequate response to my post? If they are not "non-convincing or unbelievable" are you saying that you now believe? Or is this basically double talk so that you can maintain your thread position with a non answer?

What cherry picking data? What hasty generalization? What limited accounts" More double talk?

Go and believe your anecdotes, for your own reasons. Don't expect others to find those reasons rational or acceptable. Much the same as I find your reply.

It appears, that you are trying to argue for me, in order to attack some position more easily.   If you have a point, then perhaps you would be better off to state it plainly, rather than trying to focus on me.   I'm not trying to dance around anything, and I think that what you are trying to get at, was covered in the OP and hasn't changed.   I don't know what you mean by the double talk. 

And if you want to convince me of anything, you will need to provide some reason or argument.  An incredulous stare isn't going to cut it!

[LadyForCamus]

If there's a conflict of interest AND a person cannot produce reproducible evidence, their testimony is garbage.  If a scientist says he produce cold fusion, he has a personal motivation in being the guy to produce cold fusion.  If he says, ". . . but my data got lost in a lab fire," then you'll say. . . okay either tell us how to do it, do it again with better documentation, or stop wasting our time.

As for the murder trial. . . nobody in this thread is talking about "producing evidence."  We're talking about anecdotes. . . the use of personal testimony as evidence.  When a criminal says, "Eh. . . that knife ain't mine. . . I think I saw some dude. . . yeah, that's it, I saw some dude walking by here a minute ago it must be his. . ." he has a personal interest in the outcome AND he can't produce evidence supporting his anecdote.  His word is garbage-- complete, absolute zero value.


So if a Christian starts telling me that God is real, I'll ask if they have a personal motivation in making me believe so.  The answer, pretty obviously, is yes.  Then I'll ask for other evidence supporting their claim that God is real-- miracles caught on camera, for example.  And when they can't provide it, I'll say the same thing I would say to the scientist: "I think you have a personal motivation, and you don't have evidence, so I'm not really going to entertain your claim at this time.  Come back when you have something more persuasive."

I do think that your take on things, provides an interesting twist on the Burden of Proof. 

Concerning your lab fire, and the cold fusion machine.  Do you think that there is a difference, between demonstrating, that cold fusion was achieved, and that one know's how to produce cold fusion (or can do it again)?

In terms of fostering a persuasive argument, yes. It does matter.

[brewer]

This is your idea of an adequate response to my post? If they are not "non-convincing or unbelievable" are you saying that you now believe? Or is this basically double talk so that you can maintain your thread position with a non answer?

What cherry picking data? What hasty generalization? What limited accounts" More double talk?

Go and believe your anecdotes, for your own reasons. Don't expect others to find those reasons rational or acceptable. Much the same as I find your reply.

It appears, that you are trying to argue for me, in order to attack some position more easily.   If you have a point, then perhaps you would be better off to state it plainly, rather than trying to focus on me.   I'm not trying to dance around anything, and I think that what you are trying to get at, was covered in the OP and hasn't changed.   I don't know what you mean by the double talk. 

And if you want to convince me of anything, you will need to provide some reason or argument.  An incredulous stare isn't going to cut it!

Again, I asked, you did not answer. So again:

"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).

What cherry picking data? What hasty generalization? What limited accounts?"

I am providing reason and argument. You seem to like side stepping it, you are doing your level best to keep dancing. We are past the OP. Saying go back to the beginning and start over is yet another dodge. You sound like someone who is unable to support their position. 

Look, I believe that you believe in anecdotes/testimony, accepting them as true with no other supporting evidence (faith?), and that is OK with me. My issue is when you try to convince me that I, and others, should accept your reasons for belief in testimony and give it credence. They are only acceptable to you, not I.

I think Cato got it right, your ploy to get us to accept religious testimony appears to have failed.

[RoadRunner79]

It appears, that you are trying to argue for me, in order to attack some position more easily.   If you have a point, then perhaps you would be better off to state it plainly, rather than trying to focus on me.   I'm not trying to dance around anything, and I think that what you are trying to get at, was covered in the OP and hasn't changed.   I don't know what you mean by the double talk. 

And if you want to convince me of anything, you will need to provide some reason or argument.  An incredulous stare isn't going to cut it!

Again, I asked, you did not answer. So again:

"What in their anecdotal evidence do you not find convincing or believable?

I normally do believe that they where vaccinated, and where diagnosed with autism shortly after.

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).

I'm not really sure what you are asking here?

What cherry picking data? What hasty generalization? What limited accounts?"

Cherry picking data, means that you are only taking the data which supports your case, while ignoring that which does not.
Hasty Generalization and limited accounts I guess is kind of redundant.  It means forming a general conclusion, based on a small sample size.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC it failed.  RR doesn't find his -own- line of rationalizations regarding anecdotes to be compelling.  If it can't convince someone who wants to believe based upon anecdotes, it's unlikely to convince someone who knows better.

[RoadRunner79]

I do think that your take on things, provides an interesting twist on the Burden of Proof. 

Concerning your lab fire, and the cold fusion machine.  Do you think that there is a difference, between demonstrating, that cold fusion was achieved, and that one know's how to produce cold fusion (or can do it again)?

In terms of fostering a persuasive argument, yes.  It does matter.  

I would agree.... demonstrating that it happened, is not the same as demonstrating that you can do it again.

[LadyForCamus]

RR, brewer is asking you if you accept the alleged causal link between the two based solely on anecdotes. You're playing dumb again. Why?

[bennyboy]

I do think that your take on things, provides an interesting twist on the Burden of Proof. 

Concerning your lab fire, and the cold fusion machine.  Do you think that there is a difference, between demonstrating, that cold fusion was achieved, and that one know's how to produce cold fusion (or can do it again)?

I used this example, because it's one of the neat cases where apparently sincere scientists have been eluded by what they thought they had in this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

This has actually happened in our lifetimes, and I can remember it-- fairly legit scientists claimed they had produced a low level cold fusion using (I believe) materials extracted from sea water or something like that. They shared their data with other institutions, who were all unable to reproduce the results.

This case is particularly interesting, because Martin Fleischmann, one of the scientists involved, had achieved many useful results, and was a highly respected and decorated chemist already at that time. If you were looking for an authority whose word you might trust at face value, he'd probably be one that you'd say, "Well. . . if Martin Fleischmann says it happened, it probably did."

It's a testament to the scientists involved, to the scientific community, and to science itself, that we don't go around talking about the miracle of cold fusion today, just because we accept the "testimony" of a well-known member of the scientific community.

[bennyboy]

There are a lot of discussions, such as evolution, which become much easier, if I follow those rules.   I don't think it is useful, but that is why I wanted to discuss.

I'm with you, to a degree, on evolution. It's a much more subtle and philosophical position than it is normally taken for. I find it particularly annoying that it is often couched in narratives based on what we assume were environmental pressures for a given species-- "Oh, well there must have been a shortage of leaves, so the longer necks were obviously the species' response to increased competition for food" or whatever. There literally is no physical trait or behavior that someone can't make up a story for, and these narratives get passed on as science.

That being said, evolution as adaptation of existing species is done in labs with flies and so on, and I believe it is reproducible given a simple enough species and very highly controlled environmental "pressures."

Something similar happens in complex ANN's (artificial neural networks), in which you can get some very interesting results, but you cannot actually observe all the many changes and processes which lead to them. You just know that given x number of "trials," you can achieve y results. Or, for that matter, in the human mind, in which you can know a lot about how brain chemistry works, but not too much about how it results in the ability to subjectively experience.

[brewer]

Again, I asked, you did not answer. So again:

"What in their anecdotal evidence do you not find convincing or believable?

I normally do believe that they where vaccinated, and where diagnosed with autism shortly after.

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).

I'm not really sure what you are asking here?

What cherry picking data? What hasty generalization? What limited accounts?"

Cherry picking data, means that you are only taking the data which supports your case, while ignoring that which does not.
Hasty Generalization and limited accounts I guess is kind of redundant.  It means forming a general conclusion, based on a small sample size.

Evasive again. This is the act of the desperate.

I'll put it this way, biblical testimony is lacking in evidence. Even if it was first person evidence (which I believe it is not) I will not believe it based on any position that you have put forward in this thread. 

There is no cherry picking data from the anti-vaxers, it is there for all to see. Plus, if you thought the "vaccination/autism" testimony was cherry picked, I said you could pick another case (look above-said "your choice") but you declined. Another act of desperation. And there are not "limited accounts" from the anti-vaxers, as I said there are thousands if not more. That is not a small sample size. You are making an application that is incorrect, desperation, desperation, desperation. 

And then, "not sure what you are asking". One more desperate act of playing ignorant. I asked if you could explain how you came to the "not normally" belief statement regarding "vaccination causes autism" and how this compares to any other testimony for any case of your choice (note: not cherry picking) where you could make a "yes" belief statement. And then compare and contrast the evidence that has you come to a different conclusion for each case. Can you understand this? 

Again, if you want to believe in biblical testimony, I don't care. Just stop playing ignorant. I find it irritating because I don't believe that you are ignorant but using it as a ploy. If it continues then I'll be left with no choice but to bring your intelligence into question. 

If you can't answer directly then you have no answers and should stop.