Based on dictionary definitions I concluded that:
A UFO report is the testimony of eyewitnesses, that is... evidence.
Evidence of what? Anecdotes are not evidence
You ask two independent questions here.
To begin, your question “Evidence of what?” assumes the correct (Oxford English Dictionary) definition that eyewitness testimony is evidence. Full Stop. Well done. And good question! It is THE question!
Then you move on to an entirely different question – and that in two parts (ie; you make two assumptions).
First: Can we legitimately say that an eyewitness testimony UFO report is an “anecdote”?
Second: If so, then can we legitimately describe an anecdote as “evidence”?
In answer:
Testimony: n. Evidence (but we already knew that), demonstration, (); (law) oral or written statement under oath, or affirmation; declarations, statements, solemn protest (and so on, but nowhere is anecdote mentioned).
Anecdote: n. narrative of detached incident; unpublished details of history (nowhere is testimony or evidence mentioned).
The two terms certainly seem to be separate (distinct, different in application) – but to be sure let us turn now to a Thesaurus (Roget’s).
Here we find "anecdote" listed under types of
Description:
Here we DO NOT find “anecdote” related with terms such as:
account, statement report, etc.
We DO however find it in relation to:
narrative, history, memoir, etc.
This then clarifies our dictionary definitions somewhat… (we were struggling with “narrative of detached incident” weren’t we…) and we can now say with some confidence that a UFO report (
eyewitness testimony, account, statement, etc) is a different thing altogether than an anecdote (
narrative, history, memoir, etc). In other words, we CANNOT (according to definition) directly relate terms such as testimony, statement or report with “anecdotes” (they have distinctly different meaning and application). To do such a thing is either to be in ignorance of the definitions of the terms involved or to wilfully undertake to dupe your readers.
I do hope that settles the matter once and for all (although I would bet my house the “debunkers” will simply ignore protocol, ignore definitions, and carry on in wilful ignorance or deliberate deceptiveness).
To reiterate: You MAY question whether the evidence (UFO reports) are sufficient or satisfactory to draw conclusions, but you MAY NOT deny they are evidence - and you certainly MAY NOT deceitfully describe them as “anecdotes” in an effort to weasel out of having to deal with them as EVIDENCE. Simple, straightforward, fact of the matter. Can we MOVE ON people? makaya...?
The burden of proof is on those who claim eyewitnesses are reliable, which is not the case
First point: I can legitimately argue that an eyewitness is reliable (or not) without EVER having to deal with the content of their statement (testimony, report, etc).
Then: It is YOU who have created the burden of proof for
yourself by drawing the conclusion that UFO eyewitnesses are not reliable witnesses. You MUST back up your claims with
evidence or we can LEGITIMATELY DISMISS your claim as
unfounded assertion. Which I DO.
Alternatively, If I EVER claimed UFO eyewitnesses to be
reliable, then the burden of proof falls on me to support that claim with
evidence of my own.
I do hope you see makaya the standard principles of logic and evidence at work here.
If you have not understood or you need further clarification, instruction or explanation I will only be to happy to enlighten you. All you need to do is ask
