Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Piscivore]

You really cannot see what we are differing on here. Because no one is saying X is not evidence. No one is saying X is not evidence of Y to Joe.

Lupus:"I simply have to disagree with the notion that it is evidence for anything regarding Melek"
MarkCorrigan: "I understand that you are saying that the personal accounts etc. are evidence for the person, and that this led them to the conclusion, but that does not make it evidence"

What we are saying is X is not evidence of Y, unless it really is evidence of Y.

I know. What I'm telling you is that vetted evidence ("unless it really is" evidence) is scientific evidence, but that doesn't make unvetted evidence "something else". It is still evidence.

Regardless of any conclusions anyone draws about any evidence, the evidence is unchanged.

So you keep insisting. That's only true if evidence is the object and that's simply never going to be true, unless you use the term in the colloquial, legal sense.

You have the right to your own opinion but not the right to your own facts.

Likewise.

The facts are the evidence.

No, the facts are what the evidence reveal. Eventually. If the evidence is vetted scientifically. After a long time sometimes. And even then they are subject to change if new evidence comes up.

You can have all the magical beliefs you want and claim the evidence supports your beliefs.

Yup. And other, stronger evidence probably will show otherwise.

That does not make that evidence support those magical beliefs.

Why? How can you even make that determination without knowing what the evidence is, or what the hypothesis is? Just because you "know" that anything "magical" has to be false?

Are you familiar with Clarke's law? Would a Seventeeth Century Skepticgirl be railing that evidence for the possibility of instantaneous intercontentinental communication wasn't evidence because such a concept was "magical"?

The evidence is not evidence of magical conclusions.

Except when it is. You don't get to toss it out just because you call the conclusion you don't like "magical".

The person believes it is. It may be evidence to them.

Indeed. that doesn't make it scientific evidence, but it is evidence. Beth's "feeling" isn't scientific evidence, but it is evidence. You don't get to say it isn't because you don't like the conclusion she comes to.

But it is not really evidence of the magical conclusions.

It is, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is valid, because evidence isn't infallible.

Period.

Full stop.

 

[Piscivore]

If you want to keep your semantic argument you need to qualify it. X is evidence of god to someone.

I did qualify it. I said exactly that. I also said it wasn't sufficient evidence or conclusive evidence.

But X is not really evidence of god, the person is mistaken.

It's not up to me, or you, to decide what it's "really" evidence for, that's for science and other evidence. Deciding it probably isn't evidence for god is a good starting hypothesis, nothing more. Beyond that you start throwing babies out with the bathwater.

"That's not "really" evidence for a heliocentric planetary model"
"That's not "really" evidence of evolution"
"That's not "really" evidence of invisible animals causing disease"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Vetted evidence? Scientific evidence? Nonsense! The meaning of the word evidence doesn't change. That is the same claim Beth tried to make, that the evidence wasn't of X quality. Quality has nothing to do with the problem here. The problem is claiming something is evidence OF or FOR something, when it isn't evidence OF or FOR that thing.

I don't know how Lupus or Mark worded their posts. I am telling you how articulett, myself and mobyseven are describing the definition of evidence. I'll have to go back and read the other entries to see what they meant in context.

Your very long discussion is not helping your case here, Piscivore. There is only one issue on the table. Evidence is evidence. Simply claiming it is evidence OF or FOR something does not make it evidence OF or FOR something. It is evidence OF or FOR whatever it really is evidence OF or FOR. You cannot draw a conclusion and then claim your conclusion is evidence. It is not. No one is talking about the scientific rigor of a valid conclusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did qualify it. I said exactly that. I also said it wasn't sufficient evidence or conclusive evidence.

That still does not make it evidence for something it is not evidence of. You really are missing the point.

It's not up to me, or you, to decide what it's "really" evidence for, that's for science and other evidence. Deciding it probably isn't evidence for god is a good starting hypothesis, nothing more. Beyond that you start throwing babies out with the bathwater.

"That's not "really" evidence for a heliocentric planetary model"
"That's not "really" evidence of evolution"
"That's not "really" evidence of invisible animals causing disease"

You are missing the point here. What you are saying here is the conclusion may or may not be correct. The evidence does not change.

And there are many things for which the evidence is irrefutable. So to say it isn't up to anyone to decide is bull. The evidence is irrefutable I have a heart beating inside my chest. Of course I can decide that. If I couldn't then how could any of us determine reality? But that is a side issue.

Either we correctly conclude what evidence is evidence of or we are incorrect. But incorrectly concluding something doesn't magically make the evidence into evidence for the incorrect conclusion.

You really need to rethink the difference between conclusion and evidence. You have them very blurred just as Beth does.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you want to qualify your position we could resolve this. You are arguing semantics if all you are saying is X is evidence as far as the person drawing the incorrect conclusion is concerned. We know that. We know that people believe they have correctly concluded whatever it is they are basing their god beliefs on is evidence for their god beliefs.

Just take it one step further. They believe X is evidence of gods, but that belief does not make X actual evidence of gods.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I kind of understand Piscivore’s position, where everything is evidence and then after a rigorous examination some evidence is regarded as better evidence than other. I think it’s unnecessary to go that route thou. It doesn’t mean data leading to an investigation are tossed out, more like pending an elevation to become evidence of something. Only after having created a feedback loop between signals and conclusions – i.e. having a sufficient framework for interpreting stuff – can we start talking about actual evidence of something. Within the framework we need to show a relationship between data and conclusions and that they indeed correspond, thus we can say there is evidence for conclusion X1, X2…, Xn.

I assume Pisci’s point is something of a crime scene investigator’s: By sealing off a house where a murder has taken place it’s possible to say that “don’t touch anything, everything in there is evidence”. Although what that statement in actuality means is: “don’t touch anything because something therein could be used as evidence” for a) finding out how the murder took place; b) who committed the murder; c) for convicting the murderer in a trial. A, b and c are different contexts and use different kinds of data – what might be evidence for conviction is not the same evidence as showing how the killing took place (context is key).

He is simply saying that before we start creating a framework for understanding a limited set of data, everything is evidence, although only some specific data is evidence of a particular conclusion. But in reality we must always restrict the framework beforehand; this is done by using a set of predetermined knowledge about the world and a specific interpretive point of view. Thus, a dim cloud seen through a lens is not regarded as evidence for hardly anything of interest in the field of astrobiology; what’s required is a framework, a particular set of observations and a limited set of possible conclusions, before astrobiologist’s can begin to talk about evidence – before that, it’s simply data, or potential evidence if the cloud is somehow predicted. To-meh-toe, to-ma-toe… I however think there is a difference between potential evidence for anything and actual evidence for something. Potential evidence for anything is so dim that I would not call it evidence at all, more like data. We can re-evalute some data as evidence at some later time anyway.

When it comes to god-beliefs, and based on what we already know about the world with some certainty, I suspect the question is: should a framework for taking any supernatural force into account be considered at all; is it even meaningful to begin an investigation from that point of view? The framework could be so outlandish that it might equate to being a waste of time and recourses, without any hope for finding any connection between data and the conclusion. People can say that it’s as valid as any other context, but is it really? I would say no.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Beth and Piscivore are both confusing evidence and conclusions. It is a pretty simple matter. I don't think there is any other way to view it.

He ignores the dozen Net definitions of evidence, ignores how one uses it in a sentence which tells you OF and FOR are added to the word, they are not included in the word or mandated to be in the word, common sense examples like what changes when you find out evidence you thought was evidence OF X turns out not to be? Why was it evidence of X one minute and not evidence of X the next minute?

Sorry, I like the guy but this is too basic and too obvious, evidence exists. It is a thing, even if only when being used as evidence. Belief in god is not evidence of god.

 

[Piscivore]

I kind of understand Piscivore’s position, where everything [observed and used to make a conclusion] is evidence and then after a rigorous examination some evidence is regarded as better evidence than other.

That's an important element you left out. Otherwise, yeah.

I think it’s unnecessary to go that route thou. It doesn’t mean data leading to an investigation are tossed out, more like pending an elevation to become evidence of something.

If it is used to come to a conclusion, it is evidence. Nowhere, anywhere, does it say that it has to be good evidence, or that the conclusion has to be correct. If it is not used to make a conclusion, then it is data, as you say.

Only after having created a feedback loop between signals and conclusions – i.e. having a sufficient framework for interpreting stuff – can we start talking about actual evidence of something.

"Actual" evidence? If by that you mean scientific evidence, sure.

Within the framework we need to show a relationship between data and conclusions and that they indeed correspond, thus we can say there is evidence for conclusion X1, X2…, Xn.

In science, yes indeed. Not all people are scientists, though, and the word applies to them as well.

I assume Pisci’s point is something of a crime scene investigator’s: By sealing off a house where a murder has taken place it’s possible to say that “don’t touch anything, everything in there is evidence”. Although what that statement in actuality means is: “don’t touch anything because something therein could be used as evidence”

Correct. Because before it is observed, it's just stuff.

for a) finding out how the murder took place; b) who committed the murder; c) for convicting the murderer in a trial. A, b and c are different contexts and use different kinds of data – what might be evidence for conviction is not the same evidence as showing how the killing took place (context is key).

If I follow you correctly, yeah, sort of. I'm not entirely sure I do.

He is simply saying that before we start creating a framework for understanding a limited set of data, everything [observed and used to make a conclusion] is evidence, although only some specific data is evidence of a particular conclusion.

Yeah. More or less.

But in reality we must cannot help but always restrict the framework beforehand; this is done by using a set of predetermined knowledge about the world and a specific interpretive point of view.

... formed through a lifetime of other conclusions made with evidence (including conclusions made with other evidence (including conclusions made with other evidence (including conclusions made with other evidence ))) etc., fractaling back to the first time we opened our tiny eyes and made our very first conclusion based on an observation (when and what that is I'll leave to the Psychology department )

Science is one way to limit the pejoritive effects (and I'm not using that word, well, pejoritively) of that framework.

Understanding that science itself builds a framework of its own, a lot of people mistake the one they were born with for the scientific one.

Thus, a dim cloud seen through a lens is not regarded as evidence for hardly anything of interest in the field of astrobiology; what’s required is a framework, a particular set of observations and a limited set of possible conclusions, before astrobiologist’s can begin to talk about evidence

But understand that religion, conviction bigfeet exist, "wanting to believe" in alien visitors, pathalogical distrust of the government- they all provide a framework. It's not our framework, but they still make observations, and make conclusions with those observations. We can qualify it wither way (theirs is "poor" evidence, ours is "scientific" evidence) but they use the same process as we do to make their conclusions and so get to use the same word.

– before that, it’s simply data, or potential evidence if the cloud is somehow predicted. To-meh-toe, to-ma-toe… I however think there is a difference between potential evidence for anything and actual evidence for something. Potential evidence for anything is so dim that I would not call it evidence at all, more like data. We can re-evalute some data as evidence at some later time anyway.

What you are describing here is very close to what I'm saying. Data, "potential evidence", are those observations that have not been used to make a conclusion. And not only can we re-evaluate data, we can and do re-evaluate evidence and we can and do re-evaluate conclusions.

When it comes to god-beliefs, and based on what we already know about the world with some certainty, I suspect the question is: should a framework for taking any supernatural force into account be considered at all; is it even meaningful to begin an investigation from that point of view?

It depends on what the new evidence is, doesn't it? With a scientific framework in place, the evidence is going to have to be extraordinary, yes. That's not to say we should leave ourselves open to every outlandish possibily, but it also doesn't mean if someone says they have some extraordinary evidence that we just shoo them off and say "no you don't, you can't possibly, it's not scientific, it's not "really" evidence." Scientifc thinking has changed- sometimes radically- enough times to show that attitude is mistaken. IMO.

The framework could be so outlandish that it might equate to being a waste of time and recourses, without any hope for finding any connection between data and the conclusion.

Could be. Probably is. But data used to make a conclusion is evidence, no mater what the conclusion is, or what other evidence is (or is not) considered.

People can say that it’s as valid as any other context, but is it really? I would say no.

Well, there you're judging the context, the framework. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that the people using the framework aren't using evidence.

 

[Piscivore]

Vetted evidence? Scientific evidence? Nonsense! The meaning of the word evidence doesn't change.

No, but the weight the evidence has, does.

That is the same claim Beth tried to make, that the evidence wasn't of X quality. Quality has nothing to do with the problem here. The problem is claiming something is evidence OF or FOR something, when it isn't evidence OF or FOR that thing.

Which is a conclusion you make based on other evidence, not because of something you "just know" or "just is" or some magically inherent quality you want the evidence to have.

If someone sees a light in the sky, and concludes that it must be aliens, his observation of the light in the sky is evidence for him supporting that concusion. Just because we don't agree with the conclusion doesn't change that fact.

Evidence is evidence. Simply claiming it is evidence OF or FOR something does not make it evidence OF or FOR something.

No, coming to a conclusion using the evidence makes it evidence OF or FOR that conclusion.

It is evidence OF or FOR whatever it really is evidence OF or FOR.

...which is a separate conclusion you make with separate evidence.

You cannot draw a conclusion and then claim your conclusion is evidence.

No one did. You are confusing two different conclusions to come to that conclsuion.

No one is talking about the scientific rigor of a valid conclusion.

I am, to moby and lupus.

That still does not make it evidence for something it is not evidence of.

I didn't say it was. I said it was evidence for the conclusion that was made with it. That does not say anything about whether the conclusion is correct or not.

You are missing the point here. What you are saying here is the conclusion may or may not be correct. The evidence does not change.

In the respect that it is still evidence regardless of whether the conclusion is correct, I agree.

And there are many things for which the evidence is irrefutable. So to say it isn't up to anyone to decide is bull. The evidence is irrefutable I have a heart beating inside my chest. Of course I can decide that. If I couldn't then how could any of us determine reality? But that is a side issue.

Indeed.

Either we correctly conclude what evidence is evidence of or we are incorrect.

But that's a separate conclusion from the conclusion the evidence helps us make, correctly or incorrectly.

But incorrectly concluding something doesn't magically make the evidence into evidence for the incorrect conclusion.

You are correct only in that it is not "magical". Using evidence to come to an incorrect conclusion makes the evidence one used evidence for the incorrect conclusion. You need to make a different conclusion with other evidence to conclude that the evidnce is better used as evidence for another conclusion than the incorrect conclusion.

You really need to rethink the difference between conclusion and evidence. You have them very blurred just as Beth does.

No, I don't.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

The framework could be so outlandish that it might equate to being a waste of time and recourses, without any hope for finding any connection between data and the conclusion.

Could be. Probably is. But data used to make a conclusion is evidence, no mater what the conclusion is, or what other evidence is (or is not) considered.

People can say that it’s as valid as any other context, but is it really? I would say no.

Well, there you're judging the context, the framework. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that the people using the framework aren't using evidence.

This is why I probably come across as an elitist, but I personally do think that there’s a difference between using data leading to any conclusion versus data leading to a conclusion where it can be shown that it’s actually evidence for that conclusion. I cannot say that people who are using data in order to come to conclusion aren’t using the data as evidence, but I can say that they are abusing the term evidence – I really think they abuse the term. But I cannot prove I’m right about this issue.

 

[Piscivore]

This is why I probably come across as an elitist, but I personally do think that there’s a difference between using data leading to any conclusion versus data leading to a conclusion where it can be shown that it’s actually evidence for that conclusion. I cannot say that people who are using data in order to come to conclusion aren’t using the data as evidence, but I can say that they are abusing the term evidence – I really think they abuse the term. But I cannot prove I’m right about this issue.

Well, explain how one determines whether the data is "actually evidence" or not.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, explain how one determines whether the data is "actually evidence" or not.

…by using a scientific standard which possibly has been subjugated to a peer review process, especially when it comes to claims of the supernatural. Hence the self-proclaimed elitism.

 

[Piscivore]

…by using a scientific standard which possibly has been subjugated to a peer review process, especially when it comes to claims of the supernatural.

Well, as I said to skepticgirl, that's a process of making conclusions about evidence, adjusting its weight and value as a means to making a conclusion. Science and the peer review process don't dictate the conclusions to which one should come with the evidence, and they don't change the fact that the observation of the light in the sky (or what have you) can and has been used as evidence of alien spacecraft (or whatever). Science and peer review don't say "you didn't see anything", it says "what you saw may have been an alien spacecraft, but it's much more likely that it was an airplane" (or a comet, or what have you).

Maybe we do need a different word for evidence that has been through the grinder. But we don't have one yet, and trying to cut off the "country cousins" by ignoring them or dismissing them or pretending they aren't evidence is just asking for errors. Errors like thinking that evidence is unalterable and infallible, therefore the only way to come up with a bad conclusion is by way of petitio principii.

Hence the self-proclaimed elitism.

That's not elitism, that's just following the least error-prone method we've come up with so far.

 

[Mobyseven]

Yeah, you know, I think I might have misunderstood you. I have drifted into the broader definition, not the scientific. My apologies.


Well, first off, not everything can be considered evidence, because things unobserved cannot be used to make a conclusion.

Second, evidence used to make a conclusion stops being evidence for that conclusion when and if that conclusion is invalidated, but it doesn't stop being evidence.


It is that word "legitimate" that we are comming to loggerheads about. You and I (and science) have already seen plenty of cases where dreams and hallucinations- or more specifically the content of such- were used to make conclusions that were later invalidated. This is why "in scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world", of which the content of dreams isn't really a part.

However, if several unrelated people unknown to each other were to report the same dream content, that would still be evidence of something. It won't be (at least, it is extrememly unlikely) that the content of the dream is accurate. Still, it's not a category of experience I think we can dismiss out of hand, even if we think it is likely that they are either playing a hoax, having a trick played on them. It could be a new kind of virus. We dismiss it the woo conclusion (the content of the dream is accurate) when other evidence suggests a better conclusion or invaldates the "woo" explanation.


I see that, it is withdrawn.


Well, evidence can be led, too. That's why we have scientific standards, classes of misleading, erroneous, and manipulated evidence.

And even then evidence that looks good, looks robust, looks incontorvertable can lead to erroneous conlusions. Look how many paradigms have been hoisted up and torn down- Aristotelian physics, Newtonian Physics, Geocentrism, Lamarckian Evolution... the list goes on.


Yes, indeed. Which is why we have science, to validate these claims against other evidence (evidence which includes conclusions supported by other evidence)


Only if you are willing to accept that evidence as sufficient and conclusive. Some people do, science does not. This does not mean we have to redifine evidence to exclude the dream. We just need to look at the entirety of the evidence available and we'll see that that one bit of evidence does not countermand the mountains of evidence otherwise. The conclusion that white people are inferior is invalidated, the evidence is not.

Let's say you write that dream down, present it to a scientist, he invalidates your conclusion, and you go home dejected and file it away. Fifty years later, the guy that buys your house finds it stuck in the back of a broom closet, reads it, comes to a conclusion, and it's evidence again.


By itself, yeah, it is. That's why science is valuable. As I told skepticgirl earlier in the discussion, if "evidence" were an inherent, imutable property of any object, we wouldn't need science, because the truth would be self-evident. It isn't. Evidence can be misused, misinterpreted, and manipulated. That's why we need science.


Rationally? Not on its own. That's why we came up with science, to validate and error correct the conclusions.


Yeah, I was using the broader definition, which includes all the unscientific evidence.

Okay, I understand your position. A big issue where we come to clash is that I don't consider information (such as an anecdote) evidence, even if it leads to an investigation (and indeed, even if the investigation turns up evidence that confirms the anecdote). An anecdote is a point from which we can begin an investigation, but is not itself evidence for what is being investigated.

That out of the way, how do you apply your definition to a situation such as we have had in this thread? To explain:

• Beth has claimed that anecdotes relating to experience of god should be given some weight as evidence for the existence of god.
• However, such anecdotes are entirely uncorroborated. This makes them undesirable.
• But, we have not (and indeed cannot) falsify the existence of god. By your explanation above, because we have not falsified the conclusion obtained from the anecdotes, the anecdotes can still be considered evidence for the existence of god.

I think I see what you will say: That because 'god' is unfalsifiable, the anecdote cannot be considered evidence of a scientific standard. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect - I thought I'd take a stab to see if I properly understand your argument.

I would advocate my position for two reasons: First, using my definition of evidence, people who disagree with Popperian falsification can still 'sort the wheat from the chaff', so to speak - inductivists, Kuhn proponents, and others, who disagree with the idea of falsification and thus would not take falsifiability as a good criteria to demote evidence to non-evidence, can still recognise the anecdote as being worthless.

Second, I advocate my position because your definition only classes as non-evidence anecdotes that have had their conclusions falsified (or are unfalsifiable, if I understand you correctly), whereas it is undesirable for any anecdote to be considered evidence. Anecdotes are so unreliable that they should not be considered evidence - even if they are later discovered to be true, for their truth is not a function of the anecdote itself, but of the evidence external to the anecdote that vindicated the anecdote. In a Popperian model (for example - this could be stated differently in other ideas of method) the anecdote can be thought of as a hypothesis, and evidence can either falsify or corroborate the hypothesis - the hypothesis, however, cannot corroborate itself (that would be begging the question).

So while I think I understand where you are coming from, I still believe that your definition is too broad, and that my definition is more appropriate.

 

[Piscivore]

Okay, I understand your position. A big issue where we come to clash is that I don't consider information (such as an anecdote) evidence, even if it leads to an investigation (and indeed, even if the investigation turns up evidence that confirms the anecdote). An anecdote is a point from which we can begin an investigation, but is not itself evidence for what is being investigated.

Well, like I mentioned to Lupus, in some cases- like in History- anecdotal evidence is the best we have sometimes. We don't always get so lucky as to find the buried ruins of a Troy, we've got to go on what little people wrote down. It's not the best evidence, but it is still evidence.

That out of the way, how do you apply your definition to a situation such as we have had in this thread? To explain:

• Beth has claimed that anecdotes relating to experience of god should be given some weight as evidence for the existence of god.

Only for the person that had the original experience. I don't think Beth suggested anything beyond that.

• However, such anecdotes are entirely uncorroborated. This makes them undesirable.

Undesirable for those of us who value scientific methods, yeah. Did you see my last post to Lupus?

• But, we have not (and indeed cannot) falsify the existence of god. By your explanation above, because we have not falsified the conclusion obtained from the anecdotes, the anecdotes can still be considered evidence for the existence of god.

For the person who doesn't value science, sure.

I think I see what you will say: That because 'god' is unfalsifiable, the anecdote cannot be considered evidence of a scientific standard. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect - I thought I'd take a stab to see if I properly understand your argument.

I agree with that.

I would advocate my position for two reasons: First, using my definition of evidence, people who disagree with Popperian falsification can still 'sort the wheat from the chaff', so to speak - inductivists, Kuhn proponents, and others, who disagree with the idea of falsification and thus would not take falsifiability as a good criteria to demote evidence to non-evidence, can still recognise the anecdote as being worthless.

"An" anecdote, in the singular, sure. What is your opinion of many corraborating anecdotes? Twelve people who all report the same phenomenon, which we cannot otherwise observe or measure? Hundreds?

Second, I advocate my position because your definition only classes as non-evidence anecdotes that have had their conclusions falsified (or are unfalsifiable, if I understand you correctly), whereas it is undesirable for any anecdote to be considered evidence.

Why? Just beacuse they are unreliable on their own? Doesn't that hold true for any evidence, though?

Anecdotes are so unreliable that they should not be considered evidence - even if they are later discovered to be true, for their truth is not a function of the anecdote itself, but of the evidence external to the anecdote that vindicated the anecdote.
Doesn't that hold true for almost any evidence, though? There aren't many observations that will, on their own, produce a scientifically verifiable conclusion, are there?

In a Popperian model (for example - this could be stated differently in other ideas of method) the anecdote can be thought of as a hypothesis, and evidence can either falsify or corroborate the hypothesis

Taken this way any initial evidence could be considered just an hypothesis. I find a toilet seat from an airplane bobbing in the surf- my initial observaion- the toilet seat- is the evidence, the conclusion I come to- there might have been a plane crash- is the hypothesis. How is that different from somone running up to me on the beach saying "I saw a plane crash"? My toilet seat could just as easily been washed off a garbage barge, or floated over from Japan for all I know. Until more evidence is gathered, neither one is very good evidence. Right?

- the hypothesis, however, cannot corroborate itself (that would be begging the question).

Quite so.

So while I think I understand where you are coming from, I still believe that your definition is too broad, and that my definition is more appropriate.

For science, sure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anecdotes are evidence, mobyseven. We use systematically collected anecdotes in medical research all the time.

I will repeat my position again because I see these long drawn out explanations about drawing conclusions and weak and strong evidence, yadda yadda.

How many times must I say, I am not arguing that any of these things are evidence? Why do you all ignore the fact I have said this over and over?

But no matter how you cut it, you cannot say something is evidence OF something it is not evidence OF.

 

[Mobyseven]

Well, like I mentioned to Lupus, in some cases- like in History- anecdotal evidence is the best we have sometimes. We don't always get so lucky as to find the buried ruins of a Troy, we've got to go on what little people wrote down. It's not the best evidence, but it is still evidence.

Which is why there are many things in history that one should take with a grain of salt - not to mention that things that are mentioned very few times and are uncorroborated are generally called 'myths' not 'history'.

Only for the person that had the original experience. I don't think Beth suggested anything beyond that.

No - if something is evidence for something, it is not observer dependant. If something is evidence for something, then it is evidence for something regardless of who the observer is.

Undesirable for those of us who value scientific methods, yeah. Did you see my last post to Lupus?

For the person who doesn't value science, sure.

Not for the person who doesn't value science. For the person who doesn't value reality. That science is the only known method by which we can model reality is not my problem, it is the problem of those who wish to class as evidence experiences which are extremely unreliable, and are useless if one wishes to accurately model reality.

"An" anecdote, in the singular, sure. What is your opinion of many corraborating anecdotes? Twelve people who all report the same phenomenon, which we cannot otherwise observe or measure? Hundreds?

The plural of 'anecdotes' is not 'data'. There are some situations (as Skeptigirl has mentioned) where subjective evaluations (which I would class as different to anecdotes, and is where I differ in my position to Skeptigirl) may be systematically collected and analysed. It is important to note the difference between a subjective evaluation of discomfort or pain (which can be roughly quantified) that is systematically collected and analysed, and a dream about god; it is also important to note the difference between information collected in order to better understand objective reality, and information collected in order to better understand subjective human experience.

Why? Just beacuse they are unreliable on their own? Doesn't that hold true for any evidence, though?

It is not because they are worthless and unreliable on their own that anecdotes should not be considered evidence. It is because they provide no reliable or important information even when taken alongside a body of evidence. Information in an anecdote can only be judged as having merit in light of confirmation by evidence external to the anecdote. Even if one part of an anecdote is corroborated by evidence, it does not tell us anything about the truth value of the remaining parts of the anecdote. Because of this, anecdotes can only be considered 'true' once all the parts of the anecdote have been corroborated.

This does not work the same in reverse, however - if evidence exists, it can corroborate a hypothesis without also corroborating an anecdote. It is this inequality that gives reason for anecdotes to not be considered evidence.

Doesn't that hold true for almost any evidence, though? There aren't many observations that will, on their own, produce a scientifically verifiable conclusion, are there?

See above. You have things back to front.

Taken this way any initial evidence could be considered just an hypothesis. I find a toilet seat from an airplane bobbing in the surf- my initial observaion- the toilet seat- is the evidence, the conclusion I come to- there might have been a plane crash- is the hypothesis. How is that different from somone running up to me on the beach saying "I saw a plane crash"? My toilet seat could just as easily been washed off a garbage barge, or floated over from Japan for all I know. Until more evidence is gathered, neither one is very good evidence. Right?

Wrong, and again, it has to do with what I talk about above with you having things back to front. If you find a toilet seat from an airplane bobbing in the surf, that piece of evidence can corroborate the hypothesis that a plane crashed independent of any anecdote about crashing planes. Moreover, upon further investigation the hypothesis can be further corroborated: A plane went missing in the area two days ago; A passenger on the plane is found washed ashore the next day; Luggage from the plane is found floating in the ocean. But even with all the extra evidence, the toilet seat you originally found still carries weight as evidence. It does not stop being important because extra evidence has been found.

However, if someone runs up to you on the beach and says, "I saw a plane crash," their anecdote is not evidence. In the situation where no evidence is found that would corroborate their story, we would consider their story to be a worthless fiction. However, if the story is followed by the discovery of all the evidence mentioned above, we no longer require their anecdote, and again it becomes worthless!

To further explain, imagine for a second that there is evidence of a plane crash - but instead of the person on the beach having said, "I saw a plane crash," they said, "I saw a plane collide with an alien spaceship - the plane crashed and the spaceship flew away!" Would the evidence of the plane crash increase the overall likelyhood of the entire anecdote being true, or is it only the parts of the anecdote that have already been corroborated by the evidence that can be considered likely or true?

For science, sure.

Not for science. For reality.

 

[Mobyseven]

Anecdotes are evidence, mobyseven. We use systematically collected anecdotes in medical research all the time.

As I mention in my reply above, this is where we differ. Best to see above than for me to repeat myself.

 

[articulett]

I agree across the board mobyseven...

"feeling pain" is a conclusion about evidence-- sensory messages to a brain...

Someone's expression of pain can be used as evidence in regards to what is going on and what treatment can help. Feeling god is a similar conclusion... but it isn't a warranted conclusion since there is no evidence that one can "feel" or experience a god... that there is anything material or physical which a person can "feel" which would make sense to label god. People can have transcendent feelings from a variety of inputs... none of them warrant a god conclusion since they are all based on the brains interpretation...or conclusions about what a given neural pattern represents or "feels like"... and god is immaterial and has never been demonstrated to be able to affect the material or even to exist. "I feel transcendent and at one with the universe" is evidence of a feeling-- not evidence of a god making that feeling. Something might cause that feeling just as something caused a toilet seat in the ocean... but a conclusion of a plane crash or a god is unwarranted by the evidence thus far. A hundred people seeing a toilet seat in the ocean is still not evidence of a plane crash.

Feeling "possessed" does not ever add up to evidence that anyone ever is actually possessed just as "feeling god" can never add up to evidence that there is a god. Perceiving the earth as flat can never be evidence that the earth is flat. Not being able to understand something is not evidence of anything-- except that you don't understand. It's never evidence that a god does, or that aliens explain it, or that we are in a matrix. All such conclusions require a leap over tons of evidence-- a leap of "faith" as it were. It's a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence... Feeling pain appears to be a normal conclusion based on rather mundane evidence. Anecdotal evidence (a report of pain) can be used as evidence that a person is feeling pain or that we should check their appendix etc. It cannot be evidence for someone having put a curse on that person.

Evidence in the real world is axiomatic... a toilet seat in the ocean is evidence of a toilet seat in the ocean... it can be indicative of a plane crash or something else... but it can't be "evidence for" something it is not "evidence for". If there was no plane crash, then it's evidence for some other means of toilet seats in the ocean.

Skepticgirl is right that Beth is mistaking her interpretation (conclusion) as evidence for god. If no god exists (and none has ever been demonstrated), then there can be no evidence for god. Just as if there was no plane crash, a toilet seat in the ocean cannot be evidence of a plane crash... even if you interpret it as evidence for a plane crash... it is not... nor never can be. Evidence can lead people to a wrong conclusion or interpretation... but it can not be evidence for something something which has not been demonstrated to exist... it cannot be evidence for something it is not evidence for.

In the fact based world anyhow. If you are talking about opinions... then there can be things that we use to determine evidence of "good" or evidence of "efficacy"...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I mention in my reply above, this is where we differ. Best to see above than for me to repeat myself.

From the above reply in question

The plural of 'anecdotes' is not 'data'. There are some situations (as Skeptigirl has mentioned) where subjective evaluations (which I would class as different to anecdotes, and is where I differ in my position to Skeptigirl) may be systematically collected and analysed. It is important to note the difference between a subjective evaluation of discomfort or pain (which can be roughly quantified) that is systematically collected and analysed, and a dream about god; it is also important to note the difference between information collected in order to better understand objective reality, and information collected in order to better understand subjective human experience....However, if someone runs up to you on the beach and says, "I saw a plane crash," their anecdote is not evidence. In the situation where no evidence is found that would corroborate their story, we would consider their story to be a worthless fiction. However, if the story is followed by the discovery of all the evidence mentioned above, we no longer require their anecdote, and again it becomes worthless!...

We are not that far apart here.

Subjective experience was what I had in mind in reference to the medical research. But the real difference lies in someone telling you something, which is simply unreliable, and systematic collection of anecdotal evidence usually with controls of some kind that make anecdotal evidence of value.

First, the definition of 'evidence' includes anecdotes. Again, as with Piscivore and Beth only defining evidence in terms of what it is evidence for or of, you may be doing the same in reverse when you say an anecdote is not evidence. It is evidence. It may not be evidence OF the thing described in the anecdote. So in that sense it might be unreliable evidence, and it certainly isn't evidence of something, unless it turns out to be a valid anecdote. But it is correct to call something anecdotal 'evidence'.

Systematically collecting anecdotal evidence is most often used to evaluate subjective experiences such as pain. But really, anytime a study relies on subjects and controls to relate historical evidence of any kind, that is anecdotal evidence. So, for example, if I want to look at people who successfully lost weight and kept it off and compare them to people who tried to lose weight but were not successful, I might administer the same questionnaire to the two groups about what they did and compare the groups. That would be systematically collecting anecdotal evidence not related to subjective experience. What makes the data useful is having two groups to compare. If it turns out, as it does in the case I am using as an example, that the group who lost weight and kept it off did 3 things differently than the group failing to lose weight, and all the other answers in the questionnaire were answered similarly, then it is valid to conclude those three things were indeed relevant.

(BTW, the three things were, 1) weighing oneself daily, 2) counting calories consumed, and, 3) increasing one's activity level, (in particular, fidgeting more, walking more, and things which increased activity all around like taking the stairs rather than the elevator.)

So you can see that anecdotes themselves are not the problem. It is single anecdotes which are unreliable while systematically collected anecdotes with controls can be very useful evidence in some studies.