Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[John V]

My favorite from Dilbert (paraphrased):

Dogbert: I have solid anecdotal evidence.

Dilbert: I don't believe anecdotal evidence. I believe scientific evidence.

Dogbert: No, you believe what you read about scientific evidence in the mass media.

[GrandizerII]

My favorite from Dilbert (paraphrased):

Dogbert: I have solid anecdotal evidence.

Dilbert: I don't believe anecdotal evidence. I believe scientific evidence.

Dogbert: No, you believe what you read about scientific evidence in the mass media.

Still better than anecdotes.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All of history is constructed from anecdotes. That includes paleontology too. The fossil record is just a pile of physical anecdotes.

[Brian37]

All of history is constructed from anecdotes. That includes paleontology too. The fossil record is just a pile of physical anecdotes.

Bullshit. Paleontology objective that is lagit. Making up a fairy tale is a stage act on paper, like a magician seemingly sawing the women in half. A history of passing down fairy tales is not the same as objective observation and objective reporting. 

You don't get to equate theological apology to scientific method. The two are not even remotely comparable.

Your bible is a book of myth. Paleontology is a scientific field. 

History is recorded, both the bad reports and the lagit reports, objective filters allow modern society to sort out what is fact and what is bullshit. Paleontology only reports, it doesn't demand yo follow any religion or sell any religion. 

You fell for the ultimate fake news. You're simply upset we aren't buying it.

[GrandizerII]

All of history is constructed from anecdotes. That includes paleontology too. The fossil record is just a pile of physical anecdotes.

I can't make sense of what you mean by "physical anecdotes". There are interpretations of the fossil record, yes. There are also expectations of what the fossil record should contain, along with the arrangements and such, based on current scientific theories.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All of history is constructed from anecdotes. That includes paleontology too. The fossil record is just a pile of physical anecdotes.

I can't make sense of what you mean by "physical anecdotes". There are interpretations of the fossil record, yes. There are also expectations of what the fossil record should contain, along with the arrangements and such, based on current scientific theories.

When some skeptics use the term anecdote usually they do so as a way to dismiss personal statements about that do not fit in with how they think the world 'should' work. Except 90% of what history is made of is anecdotes - letters, inscriptions, records, artifacts, etc. For example, if I think my ancestors came from Reading, England to Wheaton, Illinois sometime around the turn of the century, then I would expect to find them listed in the census around that time. And lo and behold, I did find them. Theory confirmed.

My point is that anything that happened in the past is a reconstruction. We cannot go back and run experiments in the past. Evolution and geology are basically history. You cannot run an experiment about speciation any more than you can for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. All you can do is see if new information fits together with what is already known.

[GrandizerII]

When some skeptics use the term anecdote usually they do so as a way to dismiss personal statements about that do not fit in with how they think the world 'should' work.  Except 90% of what history is made of is anecdotes - letters, inscriptions, records, artifacts, etc.  For example, if I think my ancestors came from Reading, England to Wheaton, Illinois sometime around the turn of the century, then I would expect to find them listed in the census around that time. And lo and behold, I did find them. Theory confirmed.

My point is that anything that happened in the past is a reconstruction. We cannot go back and run experiments in the past. Evolution and geology are basically history. You cannot run an experiment about speciation any more than you can for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. All you can do is see if new information fits together with what is already known.

The content in the letters, inscriptions, records, and such may be anecdotes (testimonials), yes. But this isn't to say that such objects cannot be scientific evidence as well. It depends on the scientific hypothesis/theory at hand and what the hypothesis/theory predicts.

For example: if some scientific theory says that one should expect to see certain fossils in these layers here rather than in the layers over there, then the fossil record would constitute scientific evidence if these certain fossils do happen to be found in these layers and not in other layers.

I would say the example you gave does suggest that what the census lists is evidence that your ancestors came from a certain area to another at a certain time, and it would certainly be a much better evidence than a mere anecdote from one of your relatives. But it would also be good to do some dating analysis of the census manuscript (based on the science of dating methods) to determine when it was written just to strengthen the collective evidence for your claim. The more evidence, the better, provided they're not merely anecdotes/testimonials (because anyone can say anything really, so it's not much support if any).

[Neo-Scholastic]

...if some scientific theory says that one should expect to see certain fossils in these layers here rather than in the layers over there, then the fossil record would constitute scientific evidence if these certain fossils do happen to be found in these layers and not in other layers.

Indeed. It's a very fine line though, isn't it? An analogous historical theory would say that a particular type of potshard would only be found at certain layers of a dig site or that artifacts from a specific cultural group won't be found in some area before a certain date. You can predict that if one culture reports seeing major cosmic events, others will too. Now is that science or is it history? How does one draw the line? Now suppose the cosmic event happened in 300 B.C. but only two scribes told of it - one in Greece another in India. And the Greek report is recorded by the disciple of the person who actually observed it. Do we just say, well, those are just anecdotes?

[GrandizerII]

...if some scientific theory says that one should expect to see certain fossils in these layers here rather than in the layers over there, then the fossil record would constitute scientific evidence if these certain fossils do happen to be found in these layers and not in other layers.

Indeed. It's a very fine line though, isn't it? An analogous historical theory would say that a particular type of potshard would only be found at certain layers of a dig site or that artifacts from a specific cultural group won't be found in some area before a certain date. You can predict that if one culture reports seeing major cosmic events, others will too. Now is that science or is it history? How does one draw the line? Now suppose the cosmic event happened in 300 B.C. but only two scribes told of it - one in Greece another in India. And the Greek report is recorded by the disciple of the person who actually observed it. Do we just say, well, those are just anecdotes?

I should've said testimonies, not testimonials. Anyway ...

To answer the first question (science or history regarding reports of cosmic events), I would say it's reasoning based on what is known or accepted as true (which is what scholars in history and similar fields tend to do). Would this be considered scientific? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's not a big deal for me either way. As long as what we're looking at adequately supports/falsifies the hypothesis being proposed, then this is at least borderline science.

To answer the second question, I would call those anecdotes because they're accounts written by human beings (with imperfections and biases just like any of us) of what they believe happened, even if their works were considered scholarly. At best, I might consider them very weak (tentative) evidence that some major cosmic event happened. You also have to take into account that only two scholars (albeit in separate countries) reported this, so we have to be skeptical until we have more conclusive and corroborating evidence that the major cosmic event did happen.

EDIT: I guess the amount of details in each account and the consistency found between the accounts might make the case stronger that some cosmic event did happen, but the problem is that it may also be that one of them copied from the other somehow, particularly if there is evidence suggesting the plausibility that people commuted between the two countries. And then you have to consider the agendas of the authors as well. Which makes things really complicated and hinders us from getting anywhere conclusive. And that's why I'm no historian.

[John V]

The content in the letters, inscriptions, records, and such may be anecdotes (testimonials), yes. But this isn't to say that such objects cannot be scientific evidence as well. It depends on the scientific hypothesis/theory at hand and what the hypothesis/theory predicts.

For example: if some scientific theory says that one should expect to see certain fossils in these layers here rather than in the layers over there, then the fossil record would constitute scientific evidence if these certain fossils do happen to be found in these layers and not in other layers.

Sure, but that's not what happens in any meaningful way. Fossils are found and then fitted as best they can into the existing record.

Tiktaalik was an attempt at actually making a prediction, but in the end it was wrong.