Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Belz...]

- I don't understand what you mean by that.

It's like you've just bumped into this thread. You've been at this for four years and you act as if all this is new to you.

 

[annnnoid]

(snip)

The “my house is on fire” thing was being made in the context of a call to 911. A context which was referenced at least a half dozen times…

<snip>

There's no way to explain it to them. That's pretty clear at this point.

Cognitive dissonance…denial…just plain old ignorance. Pretty clear though!

I will note that for the next time you tell someone off for not answering yours.

I certainly encourage you to derive what pleasure you can out of the opportunity.

That's not an answer.

How observant of you.

The claim under discussion is whether or not anecdotes can alter the probability of a scientific hypothesis. Within this context you raised the "anecdote" of someone claiming they loved their wife. I repeated this anecdote and you believed it, having assumed I was telling the truth. Then I revealed that I don't have a wife, and you have now concluded that I was lying.

Would you consider it scientifically valid to assume that people telling anecdotes are not lying? Does such an assumption always lead to an accurate understanding of the truth?

Notice the highlighted word ('can' is not 'does'). It depends on the anecdote, and it depends on the hypothesis. Anyone with a gram of intelligence would know this…including any scientist worth the title.

Remember what I said about whales?...probably not.

Then, despite declaring the first question "ridiculous", you have actually answered it - namely, you would consider it scientifically valid to simply assume that all anecdotes are true.

Where did I ever make such a claim???? You seem to have a desperate need to find whales. There are none…but don’t let that stop you.

<snip>

In your experience, are 100% of people 100% honest 100% of the time? If not, then do all the percentages rise up to 100% if you ask people to be honest? If not, then why do you feel that that isn't something that needs to be taken into consideration when performing a scientific experiment?

But it IS something that is taken into consideration…along with a whole pile of other things. It all depends on the anecdotes in question and the hypothesis in question. Each case is taken on its own merits.

…but…if you would waste your time educating yourself about this issue (instead of going fishing for whales), you would discover that the base approach when dealing with anecdotal evidence (which is used in absolutely massive amounts of scientific research) assumes honesty.

I know…crazy stuff. But hang on…that’s actually what’s going on RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW (except, of course, when people flat out admit that they’re lying, at which point those people have permanently lost all credibility [notice the word permanently]).

Everyone here makes posts (anecdotes…according to Nonpareil’s wonderfully useful definition [“unverified reports”]) based on the implicit assumption that the posts made by everyone else honestly reflect what everyone else actually wants to say.

That means…YOUR post (anecdote), is…by definition…evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing when you wrote it.

YOU have just proved that anecdotes ARE evidence (AND honest evidence at that). No verification required! Congratulations.

…HOW…CRAZY…IS…THAT!!!!!

Even if people were 100% honest 100% of the time they could still be mistaken or misremembering.

Still waiting for Jabba to give his evidence for immateriality. A book of anecdotes which can be explained in several different ways, of which immateriality is the only one that doesn't have any supporting evidence, is clearly not it.

…and somehow this garbage becomes the argument “anecdotes never have evidential legitimacy.”

It is worth noting…that according to Nonpareils very useful definition…YOUR post is an anecdote (an “unverified report”). Presumably you are not actually so dumb as to argue that your post is NOT evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing when you wrote it???

…cause if you are going to make that argument then we will have to conclude that you have lost not only any shred of credibility that you ever had but we will also have to question your sanity.

…but I’m absolutely positive that neither of these describe your condition.

Therefore your post IS a legitimate anecdote AND your post is, by definition, legitimate (honest) evidence.

There, you have just managed to contradict yourself. Congratulations.

Or, if we're talking about 100 accounts selected from millions of experiences, it is quite possible that everyone is remembering perfectly accurately and we're just seeing the results of coincidence.

Yeah…because…when a scientist is exploring a specific hypothesis, that is exactly what they do. Randomly select any old anecdote from any old person …and then act really surprised when someone starts talking about peanut butter when the issue is the effectiveness of a specific medication.

One step at a time.

I certainly do not wish to do anything to disabuse you of the fantasy that your argument is triumphant. You are so convinced that you have hooked a whale. I will do my best to behave whale-like for the duration. I am finding this whole exercise mildly entertaining.

We have plenty of evidence that people lie, are mistaken, hallucinate, make lucky guesses, misremember, and experience odd things when their brains are under stress.

…and we have plenty MORE evidence that people are sane and honest! Virtually ever category and sub-category of human existence is fundamentally predicated upon this implicit assumption…and it is trivially easy to establish the veracity of this conclusion. This entire forum and this entire thread add to that evidence and confirm these conclusions. Every post you make supports these FACTS! …or are you actually going to start arguing that your posts (which, according to Nonpareils very usefully provided definition…ARE anecdotes)…are NOT honest????

We have plenty of evidence that people lie, are mistaken, hallucinate, make lucky guesses, misremember, and experience odd things when their brains are under stress.

So how does this establish that any specific anecdote is fraudulent? ...especially given the indisputable FACT that the incidence of honesty is FAR greater (by immeasurable orders of magnitude) than the incidence of fraudulence!

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Jabba]

Mojo,
- What if the report (anecdote) given was that his wife was in the waiting room, wearing red -- but she wasn't?

Jabba,
- I could post a series of videos of me throwing a die and it coming up as a six. Would you accept that as evidence that I throw a six every time I throw a die?

Mojo,
- I don't see how your example is analogous.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- I don't understand what you mean by that. Where can I find that definition?

Literally anywhere. Look up the scientific method. Then follow it.

 

[Jabba]

It's like you've just bumped into this thread. You've been at this for four years and you act as if all this is new to you.

Argumemnon,
- I think that LL was wrong.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Where did I ever make such a claim????

The bit I quoted.

But it IS something that is taken into consideration…along with a whole pile of other things. It all depends on the anecdotes in question and the hypothesis in question. Each case is taken on its own merits.

Now we're getting somewhere. Can you elucidate on what you've said here, please? Give a couple of examples of anecdotes, hypotheses and "whole pile of other things", please.

 

[Jabba]

Literally anywhere. Look up the scientific method. Then follow it.

LL,

- This is what Wikipedia says about the scientific method:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[4] It is important to design a experiment so that a hypothesis can be tested. The most important part of the scientific method is the experiment. [5]
The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.[1]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[6][7] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[8]
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[9] Experiments can take place in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[10] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order.[11] Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method. For example, Lee Smolin[12] and Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method). Nola and Sankey remark that "For some, the whole idea of a theory of scientific method is yester-year's debate".[13]
- Can you point to something specific?

 

[Jabba]

LL,
- An NDE anecdote claims an event. If the other involved witness(es) disavow the claimed event, the claimed event is effectively falsified.

 

[Nonpareil]

The “my house is on fire” thing was being made in the context of a call to 911.

Which changes... precisely nothing about the argument.

Read before responding.

Happy to see you don’t give a damn that dear-old-dad disagrees with you. I guess we’ll just have to hang around for a bit and see what Loss Leader has to say.

So we’re back to the ‘staggeringly ignorant thing.’ That’s a bad sign Nonpareil. Last time you did that you got massacred. Remember.

As for the rest of your nonsense…I’m just gonna have to quit. Anyone who insists on arguing positions as blatantly irrational as yours is just not worth my time.

Oh, look. More of this.

I'm very flattered that you consider me the windmill to your Quixote, annnnoid, but this constant attempt at derailing conversations with a post from five years ago that has literally nothing to do with the thread in hand really has to stop. And the bringing up my familial relationship with Garrette as if it has any bearing on the arguments made.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the last time this happened, moderation even slapped you for it, because repeated and deliberate derail attempts are against the rules.

But it doesn't really matter. The point is, annnnoid, that no one cares. Your desperate attempts to prop up your own ego by trying (clumsily) to belittle me don't do anything to actually help your argument. They do nothing but make you look even sillier, and make the fact that you don't actually have an answer to the arguments put forth even more obvious.

Knock it off. Address the points raised. And learn what the words mean.

Then, you might have a chance.

Notice the highlighted word ('can' is not 'does'). It depends on the anecdote, and it depends on the hypothesis.

Which is to say, it depends on the anecdote having supporting evidence.

Where did I ever make such a claim????

How would you eliminate this possibility when conducting a scientific experiment?

Presumably you are asking how I would eliminate the possibility of fraudulent answers.

Quite OBVIOUSLY….that is impossible. Usually anecdotes are collected under an assumption of integrity.

A question is asked…and an honest answer is provided.

I know that must sound like a truly mind-boggling concept. Strangely enough…it seems to work.

As I said, annnnoid, it really does seem like you don't even understand the words you use.

…and if you knew the slightest thing about science, you would know that science does not deal in what is true. Do you know what science does deal in? If not, I’m gonna have to assume this whole line of questioning is rather pointless.

Oh, this should be entertaining.

By all means, tell us what you think science deals in, annnnoid. Just try to make sure that you actually get the definitions right beforehand. It'll save us all some time.

But it IS something that is taken into consideration…along with a whole pile of other things. It all depends on the anecdotes in question and the hypothesis in question. Each case is taken on its own merits.

...Which is to say, on how much support can be found for the anecdote in question, yes.

It is worth noting…that according to Nonpareils very useful definition…YOUR post is an anecdote (an “unverified report”).

No.

Presumably you are not actually so dumb as to argue that your post is NOT evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, experiencing when you wrote it???

That is not what "anecdote" means. It is also not what "unverified report" means. You are, again, completely ignoring what words mean in order to try and stretch the definition far enough to include literally all communication and claim a victory through technicality.

You fail on every count.

So how does this establish that any specific anecdote is fraudulent?

It doesn't. It establishes that any given anecdote has an unknown truth value until verified, and therefore cannot be used as evidence.

This is not complicated.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)

It doesn't. It establishes that any given anecdote has an unknown truth value until verified, and therefore cannot be used as evidence.

This is not complicated.

It may not be complicated, but I'm still confused. Are you saying that evidence does have a known truth value (as opposed to anecdote) and doesn't need to be verified? Or maybe that evidence contains its own verification?

 

[jt512]

It doesn't. It establishes that any given anecdote has an unknown truth value until verified, and therefore cannot be used as evidence.

Evidence doesn't has a known "truth value." It has a probability (distribution).

 

[Nonpareil]

It may not be complicated, but I'm still confused. Are you saying that evidence does have a known truth value (as opposed to anecdote) and doesn't need to be verified? Or maybe that evidence contains its own verification?

Closer to the first. Evidence has a known truth value; in order to have this known truth value, it must have been verified.

Unverified claims - that is, anecdotes - are face-down playing cards. They might be exactly what you need to build the winning poker hand, but they might also be completely worthless. In order to know, you have to look at them. Five cards face-down in front of you are not evidence that you have a royal flush.

 

[Nonpareil]

Evidence doesn't has a "truth value." It has a probability. You are committing a category error.

If the hypothesis is "there is an elephant in my living room", the lack of elephants in my living room is both evidence and true.

If you want to talk about evidence in a Bayesian model needing to have probabilities assigned to it, be my guest, but it doesn't actually affect my argument.

 

[marplots]

Closer to the first. Evidence has a known truth value; in order to have this known truth value, it must have been verified.

Unverified claims - that is, anecdotes - are face-down playing cards. They might be exactly what you need to build the winning poker hand, but they might also be completely worthless. In order to know, you have to look at them. Five cards face-down in front of you are not evidence that you have a royal flush.

I like the analogy with the face-down poker cards. They are not evidence of a royal flush until you turn them over and verify. However, they would seem to be evidence that you are playing poker.

Which makes me think that an anecdote may not qualify as evidence of one thing but might of another. And, by symmetry, evidence may have a high value in one dimension and none at all in another. Strange bedfellows.

 

[jt512]

If the hypothesis is "there is an elephant in my living room", the lack of elephants in my living room is both evidence and true.

If you want to talk about evidence in a Bayesian model needing to have probabilities assigned to it, be my guest, but it doesn't actually affect my argument.

What affects your argument is that evidences doesn't have known truth values, so insisting they do is futile. I agree with you that for all intents and purposes we "know" that there's no elephant in your room, and we "know" that matter is made up of atoms. But there is a whole range of evidences with probabilities in between. Small probabilities associated with individual observations can accumulate to the point that the hypothesis becomes credible, or even proven up to a probability that for all intents and purposes we can say that we "know" that the hypothesis is true. There was definitive evidence that aspirin was an effective analgesic long before anyone even envisioned a randomized clinical trial, and the evidence that it worked—people finding that it relieved their pain—is completely subjective and was not quantify in any formal way.

 

[Nonpareil]

I like the analogy with the face-down poker cards. They are not evidence of a royal flush until you turn them over and verify. However, they would seem to be evidence that you are playing poker.

Not really - presumably, if you are playing poker, there are other indicators, and the mere presence of face-down playing cards doesn't indicate much of anything on its own - but-

Which makes me think that an anecdote may not qualify as evidence of one thing but might of another. And, by symmetry, evidence may have a high value in one dimension and none at all in another. Strange bedfellows.

- this is not entirely incorrect.

As has been pointed out previously, both by myself and others, anecdotes are evidence of a few things. It's just that these things are trivial and not really related to the discussion in hand. For example, an anecdote is evidence of its own existence, the same way that an elephant is evidence for elephants. It is evidence that the speaker had some reason for imparting it, even if it isn't any evidence at all of what that reason actually was. And so on.

These are all verifiable properties of the anecdote: it exists, it was relayed from one person to another, et cetera. Because they are demonstrably true, they can be evidence for related hypotheses. This has never really been in dispute, though several posters have kept bringing it up and then ignoring the responses.

What this discussion has been about, from the beginning, is whether or not anecdotes are evidence for their own truth - if anecdotes about near-death experiences that included supernatural elements are evidence for the supernatural.

And the answer is, very simply, no.

 

[Nonpareil]

What affects your argument is that evidences doesn't have known truth values, so insisting they do is futile. I agree with you that for all intents and purposes we "know" that there's no elephant in your room, and we "know" that matter is made up of atoms.

In which case there is a known truth value.

If you want to mentally replace every "known" in my posts with "established to within an infinitesimal difference from one hundred percent confidence" or something similar, be my guest. Again, it doesn't actually change anything, and is just a semantic difference.

Speaking in terms of Bayesian models isn't necessarily incorrect, but I am explicitly not doing that, and don't feel particularly inclined to try and force myself to.

 

[jt512]

In which case there is a known truth value.

If you want to mentally replace every "known" in my posts with "established to within an infinitesimal difference from one hundred percent confidence" or something similar, be my guest. Again, it doesn't actually change anything, and is just a semantic difference.

We agree that there are evidences that definitively prove or disprove a hypothesis. The problem is you erroneously dismiss everything in between.

Speaking in terms of Bayesian models isn't necessarily incorrect, but I am explicitly not doing that, and don't feel particularly inclined to try and force myself to.

The thing is evidence is Bayesian whether you are or not.

 

[Nonpareil]

We agree that there are evidences that definitively prove or disprove a hypothesis. The problem is you erroneously dismiss everything in between.

No, I don't.

The thing is evidence is Bayesian whether you are or not.

"All evidence can be modeled via Bayesian probability" is not equivalent to "Bayesian modeling is the only valid way to communicate ideas about evidence".

 

[Jedi]

No, I don't.



"All evidence can be modeled via Bayesian probability" is not equivalent to "Bayesian modeling is the only valid way to communicate ideas about evidence".

yep
and if you include biased data (anecdotes) then your results will tend tobe biased, whether bayesian or not.