Anecdotal Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

.

Of course it's not.  You don't ever seem to actually have one, do you?

You could go back and read the rest after you cut off my quote!

I didn't cut it off. I separated the paragraph, and then I told you I didn't understand what you meant.

No, I believe in the the philosophical and scientific evidence as well.

What scientific evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

I used to find all this very annoying, but now it's just kind of fascinating.

As you may be able to tell... I reached that point quite some time ago....
If I'm going to play agaisnt a stacked deck, and shifting goal posts, I might as well have fun with it.

This is turning "not having a position" into an art form. If I had to guess, I'd say RR is one of a small number of theists we have here who are self-aware enough to realise that if they stated their beliefs plainly, they would sound very stupid and would be indefensible. So instead they only vaguely hint at their position, while attacking the "opposition" to this unknown position. (Try and get him to say how he thinks creationism actually works.)

I think a lot of assumptions are being made about my goals and motives here (incorrectly).   I'm happy to state my beliefs plainly.   I'm not going to be forced into changing the subject though as a red herring. I also think that certain presuppositions and poor thinking need to be discussed prior to some things.    As well  I don't spend much time, when I am responded to with sophism and rhetoric, and plain disrespect.

The range of tactics on display here is quite astonishing. I think my favourite is getting other people to define your terms, then getting them to make your argument for you, then disagreeing violently with this position without saying how yours actually differs. I wonder how much cognitive dissonance this kind of thing causes a person. It must be exhausting to have to constantly shield one's points and beliefs. I suppose the strategy is that no one can shoot at a target if you never hold it up.

What is wrong, with asking someone to clarify what they are asking for?  
Also, I don't have an issue with considering two opposed ideas at the same time.  

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just discussing the very interesting psychology on display here. What I think we're actually seeing, as is often the case, is religious beliefs polluting methodology. In order to maintain the illusion that such beliefs are based on credible methods, the same methods must be presented as credible with respect to non-religious situations. But of course, they are not; as is demonstrated every single time an actual example is mentioned. If the religious person really did use the same methodology they would be either insane or just completely vulnerable as a very gullible person.

I think you are projecting your belief and predjudices into your psycho-analysis.   However I agree, that we shouldn't implore special pleading because we either favor or dislike the conclusion.    However I think that the insults and character assassination attempts seen here disprove your theory.

Anecdotes might be true. Really? Never considered that. I doubt anyone here would ever argue with this statement, so again, what is the point of this? If a person is not convinced by a particular anecdote or set thereof, is this an attempt to batter them into submission?

It's not about if testimony may be true, but if it is evidence (information for justified belief).

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='RoadRunner79' pid='1440349' dateline='1478654994']
[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1440181' dateline='1478641696']


Lol, okay RR.  So you're not going to try and equivocate between testimony and scientific evidence then?   You're NOT implying that claims falling within the realm of the natural world are on equal turf with supernatural claims?  These are not your positions?

[quote]I am saying that scientific testimony is testimony, and therefore the principles concerning testimony you hold to apply.   If you are going to make a distinction between the descriptive word scientific or religious  or whatever category you place before testimony then I think that you need to justify that difference rationally.[/quote]

How come when I ask you to clearly state YOUR position, you answer by asking me to define terms for you? The only person who is placing "scientific" in front of the word "testimony" (either explicitly or implied) is you. I'll ask again, RR. Can you clearly state your position in this thread? (Hint: try using the word "you" less).

[quote]As I have stated before, I don't make this type of categorical a priori distinction, I believe the strength is determined by the individual evidence, and may be stronger or weaker depending on the individual case.
[/quote]

So...your answer is yes, then. Why didn't you just say so?

[RoadRunner79]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means...what you think it means!

Lol, okay RR.  So you're not going to try and equivocate between testimony and scientific evidence then?   You're NOT implying that claims falling within the realm of the natural world are on equal turf with supernatural claims?  These are not your positions?

I'll tell you what then.  Why don't you do everyone a favor and come to what your point actually is, for once.  That way you don't have to worry about being called out on the logical fallacies you commit.  Eh?  [emoji57]

By the way, I do like how in one breath, you claim to not no what my point is, but that it is fallacious.

[RoadRunner79]

How come when I ask you to clearly state YOUR position, you answer by asking me to define terms for you?  

I don't see how this applies to the context, but normally, because I I want to clarify or make sure that we are talking about the same thing. I find it more charitable to submit to your understanding of the terms, then to dictate mine. Also, a little while ago in a discussion on objective morality, I defined what I meant a number of times by objective, and in the end, the other person still wasn't reasoning by that meaning.

The only person who is placing "scientific" in front of the word "testimony" (either explicitly or implied) is you.

Ok... do you find it an inappropriate use. If so why?

 I'll ask again, RR.  Can you clearly state your position in this thread?  (Hint: try using the word "you" less).

As I have stated before, my position is that I believe that often the term "anecdote" is being misapplied to equivocate it with testimony. That this is because of the use of the term "anecdotal" evidence, normally used in regard to cherry picked data or a hasty generalization, in comparison to a controlled medical experiment. Within this usage, I agree, and I agree with the reasons. Testimony, I do believe is evidence, and that it can be sufficient alone for rational belief. In some cases, it may be stronger than circumstantial physcial evidence, at other times, the physical evidence may out weight the testimony..... It is complex and I don't believe that the process is a formulaic one (other wise, we wouldn't have jurys in courts); but I do believe that we should be consistent and coherent in our rationalizations.

However please don't confuse my position, with purpose in this thread.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, okay RR.  So you're not going to try and equivocate between testimony and scientific evidence then?   You're NOT implying that claims falling within the realm of the natural world are on equal turf with supernatural claims?  These are not your positions?

I'll tell you what then.  Why don't you do everyone a favor and come to what your point actually is, for once.  That way you don't have to worry about being called out on the logical fallacies you commit.  Eh?  [emoji57]

By the way, I do like how in one breath, you claim to not no what my point is, but that it is fallacious.

You can commit a logical fallacy while still being evasive about your motives, you know. [emoji57]

[Mister Agenda]

Yet another shitpost propping up a previous shitpost.  You don't think that a human being declared doa by forensic evidence that indicates that said person was shot by the service pistol of a particular police officer who is on video shooting said person would qualify as "scientific evidence"?  Or is that anecdote, to your mind?

Do you think that the Harry Potter movies are in any way equivalent to that?

Because unless you do.....and lets be honest here..if you do there's no sense in speaking to you anymore, we need to call your handlers and get you back to a safe place where you can't choke on the crayons.....you have yourself another non-starter.

No.... I said, that I thought it was a bad argument... but akin to one I often see by regulars here...  Am I safe to assume that you agree, that simply making a comparison to Harry Potter, is not a good argument...or reasoning for that matter?

Can you give an example of an argument used by a regular here akin to that?

[bennyboy]

Here's the thing, RR.

You are trying to generalize into a principle a kind of evidence which, at best, has value in specific circumstances. I can't speak for anyone else, but since I know you are Christian, I suspect it's a slippery slope argument-- "Well if SOME anecdotal evidence has value, then anecdotes should be one of the kinds of evidence that we consider (in the case of religion)."

As Rhythm pointed out, anecdotal evidence could also be considered with regard to UFO claims. I'd add that they could be considered with regard to Greek and Roman gods, to magic, to the effectiveness of crystals and Ouija boards, and so on. Unless you are willing to take EVERYONE'S word on EVERYTHING, then you are left special pleading-- MY favorite idea should be allowed to look to anecdote (call it testimonial if you want) for support-- but of course those other crazy guys are just being silly.

[The Grand Nudger]

-meanwhile, as we desperately plead for special rules, if we attempt to create the most hilarious false equivalence imagineable..that science is "scientific testimony"...it pretty much closes the belief reenforcing loop.

"-My- anecdotes are credible, and it's -all- anecdote."

Yeah....no, and no.

[LadyForCamus]

I don't see how this applies to the context, but normally, because I I want to clarify or make sure that we are talking about the same thing. I find it more charitable to submit to your understanding of the terms, then to dictate mine. Also, a little while ago in a discussion on objective morality, I defined what I meant a number of times by objective, and in the end, the other person still wasn't reasoning by that meaning.

Did I give the impression that we are disagreeing on any legitimate terminology here? It's when you invent your own in an attempt to equivocate and give weight to something that carries practically none, (or the reverse of that)...that I start to take issue.

Ok... do you find it ("scientific testimony") an inappropriate use. If so why?

 
The only definition of "scientific testimony" that I will agree upon in this, or any discussion, is the only legitimate one that actually exists; which is scientific testimony as proffered by an expert witness on the stand during a court room proceeding. But that's not what you're talking about at all, is it? I'm going to keep using that word you don't think I understand the meaning of. [emoji6]

As I have stated before, my position is that I believe that often the term "anecdote" is being misapplied to equivocate it with testimony. That this is because of the use of the term "anecdotal" evidence, normally used in regard to cherry picked data or a hasty generalization, in comparison to a controlled medical experiment. Within this usage, I agree, and I agree with the reasons. Testimony, I do believe is evidence, and that it can be sufficient alone for rational belief. In some cases, it may be stronger than circumstantial physcial evidence, at other times, the physical evidence may out weight the testimony..... It is complex and I don't believe that the process is a formulaic one (other wise, we wouldn't have jurys in courts); but I do believe that we should be consistent and coherent in our rationalizations.

Sure...I'm not opposed to most of the above. I think where we differ here is in your obvious implication regarding what should constitute the bare minimum of evidential support for supernatural claims...bible claims specifically.

You seem to want to say, "if we take each claim case by case like the special little snow flakes they are, then I can rationally justify my belief in necromancy and unleavened bread falling from the sky, while at the same time equally as rationally reject every other supernatural claim that falls under my purview." The problem with this is that all supernatural claims are equally lacking in scientific evidence to support them. As rhythm mentioned, to ask for lenience in the case of bible claims is absolutely special pleading.