Thank you for putting my name in red. I'd been skimming through your posts so quickly that I would otherwise have missed it.
Well, that is amazing. I've neve seen such a demonstration of telepathy. Your brother went to law school and somehow you learned the rules of evidence.
Congratulations on whatever it is you wrote.
Thank you for putting my name in red
I didn’t really expect you to answer since doing so would, once again, demonstrate how worthless your entire argument is.
But no worries...it should be dead easy to find an actual credible lawyer who doesn't mind attaching their name to a legitimate answer to what is a very elementary question. In fact, I have no doubt that any lawyer would find it amusing that such a question would even be asked ...given that the answers are so blindingly obvious!
So, when I asked you how in scientific research you'd mitigate the possibility of people lying to you and you replied that "anecdotes are collected under an assumption of integrity. A question is asked…and an honest answer is provided.", what did you mean, exactly?
If it is an answer to the question posed, then it is the claim that you are denying it is. If it's not an answer to the question posed, which you are now seemingly claiming that it's not, then could you please answer the question?
You asked this:
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?
..to which I answered: “anecdotes are collected under an assumption of integrity, honesty…etc.”
...which you somehow interpreted as this:
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.
…and I asked where I have ever made such a claim?
“anecdotes are collected under an assumption of integrity, honesty…etc.”
…became:
“ All anecdotes are assumed to be true.”
Quite obviously (to most people anyway)…the first statement has a very different meaning than the second statement. Only a complete idiot would conclude that every anecdote ever made is both accurate and authentic….which probably explains why I never made such a claim!
Because you're interested in an honest conversation? Because you're trying to express your ideas clearly?
…and all of that can be accomplished without wasting a whole pile of time that I don’t have on something that can be accomplished much more easily if you would simply explain your point!
Of course, you're free to just make vague statements and pretend like that's the same thing as giving clear, honest answers if you like. But since it's a simple question which is core to the conversation we're having,
…and what is that ‘simple question’…???
I can't imagine why you wouldn't answer it fully if you are at all interested in honest communication.
…well…produce the question and I’ll answer it ‘fully.’
As it is, it seems to me that your statement is a tacit admission that the anecdote itself has no truth value and that instead it's the corroborating evidence which speaks to the hypothesis.
…and this conclusion has already been demonstrated to be blatantly flawed on every possible level and in every possible way.
Since that's the opposite of what you're arguing, I can only assume that that's not what you mean to say and that you'd take the opportunity to clarify your statement and explain how it supports your argument rather than completely contradicting it. But, as I say, it's entirely up to you.
I believe I asked you the following question (…if not, I’m asking it now):
…assuming (even if just for the sake of argument), that your posts are anecdotes…(which is secondary issue but might as well throw it in just to make things interesting since your post explicitly qualifies as an unverified report…which is Nonapreil’s definition of ‘anecdote’)(…it is ‘unverified' is it not?...and it is a ‘report’ is it not?...and combining the two words we get ‘unverified report’…which [holy smoking cheesecakes Batman] is exactly the definition that Nonpareil identified with anecdote)…
Are…or are not…your posts evidence of what you were thinking, feeling, and / or experiencing when you wrote them.
Not one of you has answered this question so far. Nonpareil has run away from it. Loss Leader has run away from it. Everyone else pretends it's not there. It's got Hokulele so scared that she won't even come back to the thread any more.
...give it a try.
