Anecdotal Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

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?

I don't have an example handy (and I don't believe that I have seen it in this thread).   But normally, it is used, essentially how I described; however with text, rather than video.   Video seemed to be applicable to the same reasoning.   And like you, I normally bring up the context of the way the media is given, and received by it's audience.  And per ussual, nothing is discussed, but the claim is just repeated.

[RoadRunner79]

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)."

Ok... can you define the specific circumstances, and justify the reasoning behind the difference?

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.

I agree, that in those cases, that it would need to be considered.   However as I have said before, I am not saying that we just believe everything without question.   But on the other hand, don't act like the voice of reason and critical thinking, if you are dismissing the evidence without question either.

[RoadRunner79]

-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.

That is not what I am saying.... Scientific testimony is testimony.  That is, it is testimony concerning science.   It is testimony, because I am not experiencing it for myself, but relieving information from another who is claiming to.

[The Grand Nudger]

If that's why you accept science then you're a moron who may as well believe in fairies and talking snakes.  It makes no difference at all.

You've also never experienced a god...but clearly that doesn't stop you in the case of that other...so obviously equal to science.....bit of "testimony".

32 pages of equivocation, false equivalence, and general asshattery. Pointless man, pointless. We all knew this about you and your beliefs, both religious and with regards to reality, on page 1.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're being shitty.

No, I'm being shitty.  But in my defense, I sincerely believe he deserves it, lol.

I didn't see you being shitty. I've never seen you be shitty. I've seen you be lovely

[RoadRunner79]

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]

Are you saying that testimony is limited to a courtroom?  The definition says that it is especially used in a court, but not that it's use is limited to that.   The root simply means "a witness" .

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.

It appears to me, that you are venturing into scientism.... do you think that science is the only way of gaining knowledge?  Or that if science doesn't explain something; that it didn't happen?   This seems irrational to me.  Also I think that you are making a lot of assumptions, and reading into in the "you seem to want to say" statement.  We haven't gotten to rejecting anything yet, except for I think that rejecting by begging the question is bad.  I have said, a number of times, that accepting testimony as evidence, doesn't mean that you do not question things.   I am guessing, that those who use "known to be possible" of a criteria, do not just hand over their information to that Prince in the Middle East, that wants to send them money (because it is possible)

[Mister Agenda]

Ok... can you define the specific circumstances, and justify the reasoning behind the difference?

I'd say at the point where different religions provide contradictory anecdotes, it's over as far as anecdotes go. If two witnesses not in cahoots report the same thing, it may suggest there's something to try to find. If they contradict each other, you've got no particular reason to think either is right, unless there is other information to support one over the other (e.g., one says they saw a reflection, the other says they saw a ghost; well, we at least know reflections are real).

[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)."

Ok... can you define the specific circumstances, and justify the reasoning behind the difference?

I said that AT BEST, anecdotal evidence has value in specific circumstances. I'd say for example if several people who don't have any connection to each other identify a criminal as having a particular tattoo, then the police should probably start looking for a guy with that tattoo. But even then, you must proceed with caution.

As for reasoning, please understand this. The bar required for evidence depends on the receiver, not on the person providing the evidence. There's no golden standard by which you get to announce that others must necessarily accept your word at face value.

[LadyForCamus]

Are you saying that testimony is limited to a courtroom?

Um, No. Where did you get that from what I said?

The definition says that it is especially used in a court, but not that it's use is limited to that.   The root simply means "a witness"

Again...okay. I fail to see how that particular semantic is relevant here...? As I said before, "scientific testimony" as given in a court room (or a karaoke bar, if that appeases you) is NOT the same thing as trying to equate a peer-reviewed research study to "testimony", simply because you didn't personally observe the scientists perform their research. THAT is a false equivalency, as has been pointed out to you several times by several people. It was also pointed out to you in The Real Religion thread. It was a fallacy then, and it's still a fallacy now.

Any good scientist proffering "scientific testimony" on the stand or anywhere else, should have the full weight of robust, repeatable, verifiable evidence behind him in support of the very thing he is testifying to. That's the whole point, you know. Not so much for someone testifying to a supernatural claim though, huh?

It appears to me, that you are venturing into scientism.... do you think that science is the only way of gaining knowledge?  Or that if science doesn't explain something; that it didn't happen?

That really wasn't the purpose of this thread though, was it? Not as stated by you, at least. If you'd like to discuss epistemology, maybe start a new thread for that specific subject. My understanding was that you wanted to discuss the usefulness and/or credibility of testimony as it applies to determining the likelihood of any particular claim being true. Yes...?

This seems irrational to me.  Also I think that you are making a lot of assumptions, and reading into in the "you seem to want to say" statement.  We haven't gotten to rejecting anything yet, except for I think that rejecting by begging the question is bad.  I have said, a number of times, that accepting testimony as evidence, doesn't mean that you do not question things.   I am guessing, that those who use "known to be possible" of a criteria, do not just hand over their information to that Prince in the Middle East, that wants to send them money (because it is possible)

Okay, RR. This could go on for an eternity if you don't fess up to where you want this thread to go. Yes, testimony can be appropriately used as supporting evidence under certain circumstances. We've all agreed to that point at least once here. The question is, where are you going to go from there, and why? If you refuse to take a positive position or offer a positive argument for the damn subject that you wanted to discuss, then frankly I'm done.

Do you think atheists are irrational for dismissing supernatural bible claims? Do you think I'm being irrational for NOT accepting the claim that a dead guy came back to life after three days, solely on the basis of stories from a 2,000 year old book? Just say so, man.

Then, once you've told us what you really think, you may begin to build your positive case for why we should accept that particular claim as likely to be true. Testimony and all.

Stop making me go 'round and 'round on the semantics carousel, or I'm just gonna jump off and be done with you.

[LadyForCamus]

No, I'm being shitty.  But in my defense, I sincerely believe he deserves it, lol.

I didn't see you being shitty. I've never seen you be shitty. I've seen you be lovely

You're a peach.