Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Upchurch]

If so, please cite the one that supports your use, as I requested.

Already done. See post #240.



Seriously, this is a forum dedicated to skepticism and critical thinking and in the last month or two I've had to defend why cherry-picking, appeals to authority, and now reliance anecdotal evidence are not valid arguments. Is this really what it's come to? This is basic stuff. It used to be that people were laughed at for making those kinds of simple logical mistakes.

harrumph

 

[Giz]

Seriously, this is a forum dedicated to skepticism and critical thinking

Evidence?

 

[Thermal]

Already done. See post #240.



Seriously, this is a forum dedicated to skepticism and critical thinking and in the last month or two I've had to defend why cherry-picking, appeals to authority, and now reliance anecdotal evidence are not valid arguments. Is this really what it's come to? This is basic stuff. It used to be that people were laughed at for making those kinds of simple logical mistakes.

harrumph

I agree, I have had problems with others making up definitions and declaring argumentative victory/superiority. I think you would agree that these kind of occasional clarifications are healthy for a sound argument.

Your cited use exempts eyewitness testimony from being anecdotal, with the exception that some kinds may be, giving the class action example. You have flatly asserted that all defendant testimony is anecdotal. Very simply, your cited source does not support your assertion.

If you don't mind, please cite in your source where all firsthand, eyewitness testimony is anecdotal, per your claim, and without calling me dishonest as a bonus.

 

[Thermal]

I simply mean that Zimmerman's version is anecdotal evidence, which is of very limited value and certainly shouldn't be the basis of any conclusions.

Courts love eyewitness testimony. That doesn't make it any less anecdotal evidence, nor any more trustworthy

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of "anecdote"..... An anecdote amounts to a claim about an event or series of events.

In an abundance of clarity, here are some of your claims about anecdotal evidence. Please reconcile with your cited source.

Edit: in a superabundance of clarity, from your cited quote in post #240:

Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote

Please note your same source defines anecdote as a short, usually funny story with a point. Eyewitness testimony by a defendant under oath is in no sense informal

 

[Aber]

If Zimmerman tried to use non-deadly force against Martin and Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and started punching him (deadly force), then Zimmerman is now legally entitled to use deadly force in self-defense.

That's not what Zimmerman claimed; it was Martin "going for Zimmerman's gun" that triggered the shooting.

 

[Belz...]

I've made my case. You disagree, because reasons.

That's a lie.

Except of course that it did agree with me.

You can stop with the word games, now. It's not working.

I base it on the fact that you demonstrated that you didn't understand.

Wrong, as usual.

 

[Belz...]

The one where one's motives and actions are based on race.

Wait a second. By that definition it would be accusing Zimmerman of being racist, not being racist oneself by assuming that he acted a certain way.

No need to apologize. This would be easy for any ordinary person. I guess this is a start, but I'll try harder.

This list shows that he called on white people also, though.

I'd consider Zimmerman's own call to support it.

It supports him following Martin, not attacking him.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a lie.

It's the truth. You don't like it, but that doesn't change anything.

Words have meaning. You apparently still can't accept that, and invent new meaning for those words. Pointing out the meaning of words isn't a word game, it's just language.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not what Zimmerman claimed; it was Martin "going for Zimmerman's gun" that triggered the shooting.

Close enough, since that doesn't change anything about my argument.

 

[Belz...]

It's the truth.

No, it's a lie. I don't disagree "because reasons" and you know it, ergo it is a lie.

Unless of course you mean that I have actual reasons to disagree, which wouldn't surprise me considering your word games, in which case then I'll take it as a compliment.

 

[Upchurch]

Please note your same source defines anecdote as a short, usually funny story with a point. Eyewitness testimony by a defendant under oath is in no sense informal

Once again, Law != Science

People wearing fancy clothes does not make something a formal procedure*. The purpose of a trial is to persuade a judge/jury toward an argument within the confines of the law, not test a claim/hypothesis. Sometimes the results are the match up, sometimes not, but they are not interchangeable. The right tool for the job: you don't use a hammer to tighten a screw.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. I've laughed at people who complain that critical thinking is dead on this board because others didn't agree with them, but people are now arguing for basic logical fallacies. Maybe those naysayers were right all along. Are we even trying to get it right or is the only concern not to admit when we're wrong, even to ourselves?

Fine. You win. Anecdotal evidence is just as good as the real thing. Cherry-picked evidence, why not? Argument from authority, all day long! I'm done.


* Well, I suppose it a type of formal procedure, in that there are rules, but it isn't the type being referred to by the article.

 

[Thermal]

Once again, Law != Science

People wearing fancy clothes does not make something a formal procedure*. The purpose of a trial is to persuade a judge/jury toward an argument within the confines of the law, not test a claim/hypothesis. Sometimes the results are the match up, sometimes not, but they are not interchangeable. The right tool for the job: you don't use a hammer to tighten a screw.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. I've laughed at people who complain that critical thinking is dead on this board because others didn't agree with them, but people are now arguing for basic logical fallacies. Maybe those naysayers were right all along. Are we even trying to get it right or is the only concern not to admit when we're wrong, even to ourselves?

Fine. You win. Anecdotal evidence is just as good as the real thing. Cherry-picked evidence, why not? Argument from authority, all day long! I'm done.


* Well, I suppose it a type of formal procedure, in that there are rules, but it isn't the type being referred to by the article.

The question is not the logical fallacy of using anecdotal evidence, you are of course correct on that. It's whether eyewitness testimony is anecdotal. I think you are using an overly broad definition to suit your argument, that Zim's testimony can be dismissed out of hand.

Despite your criticism, I am being skeptical of your use of the term and employing critical thinking to define it and present evidence. Your source puts a qualifier on testimony that you keep ignoring.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's a lie. I don't disagree "because reasons" and you know it, ergo it is a lie.

Your reasons are essentially arbitrary. You declare words to mean something other than they mean. You give a long justification, but it amounts to the same thing: because you say so.

 

[Ziggurat]

The question is not the logical fallacy of using anecdotal evidence, you are of course correct on that. It's whether eyewitness testimony is anecdotal.

Yes, it's anecdotal. But the thing is, that's a completely irrelevant descriptor in context.

Anecdotes can be bad evidence for a couple of reasons. One is that they can be wrong. But any presented evidence could be wrong, that's not peculiar to anecdotes, and in such cases, the problem is that it's wrong. Descriptors such as "unreliable" or "biased" are relevant in this context, but "anecdotal" doesn't adequately describe the possibility of the testimony being false.

The second common reason to not rely on anecdotes, and usually the relevant reason in terms of skepticism, is because even when true, they may not be representative. If you were picked on by a redhead, that doesn't prove that redheads are bullies. It's a form of sampling error. But that's not relevant either, because in a trial, it doesn't matter whether the events in question are representative. It only matters what happened in this one event, and a single event is always representative of itself.

So while it's technically true that eyewitness testimony in court is anecdotal, when that testimony is about the event in question (rather than, say, a character witness), then "anecdotal" is just completely irrelevant. It's not wrong to describe it as such, but it's pointless to do so. It adds nothing of any value. It's just a distraction.

 

[sunmaster14]

Once again, Law != Science

People wearing fancy clothes does not make something a formal procedure*. The purpose of a trial is to persuade a judge/jury toward an argument within the confines of the law, not test a claim/hypothesis. Sometimes the results are the match up, sometimes not, but they are not interchangeable. The right tool for the job: you don't use a hammer to tighten a screw.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. I've laughed at people who complain that critical thinking is dead on this board because others didn't agree with them, but people are now arguing for basic logical fallacies. Maybe those naysayers were right all along. Are we even trying to get it right or is the only concern not to admit when we're wrong, even to ourselves?

Fine. You win. Anecdotal evidence is just as good as the real thing. Cherry-picked evidence, why not? Argument from authority, all day long! I'm done.


* Well, I suppose it a type of formal procedure, in that there are rules, but it isn't the type being referred to by the article.

Ironic. You opine about the importance of critical thinking all the time, but you rarely demonstrate it yourself <snip>. In this case, your argument is pathetic. Eyewitness testimony may not be strong evidence for a lot of reasons, but it is not the same as anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is considered bad because it is not necessarily representative. Zimmerman's testimony is absolutely representative. It might be incorrect, but if it is true, then it is absolutely dispositive. If I say that the quality of life in France is lower than in the US because I have a friend in France who is unhappy, that's anecdotal. Even if true, it says pretty much nothing about my claim.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Content edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, it's anecdotal. But the thing is, that's a completely irrelevant descriptor in context.

Anecdotes can be bad evidence for a couple of reasons. One is that they can be wrong. But any presented evidence could be wrong, that's not peculiar to anecdotes, and in such cases, the problem is that it's wrong. Descriptors such as "unreliable" or "biased" are relevant in this context, but "anecdotal" doesn't adequately describe the possibility of the testimony being false.

The second common reason to not rely on anecdotes, and usually the relevant reason in terms of skepticism, is because even when true, they may not be representative. If you were picked on by a redhead, that doesn't prove that redheads are bullies. It's a form of sampling error. But that's not relevant either, because in a trial, it doesn't matter whether the events in question are representative. It only matters what happened in this one event, and a single event is always representative of itself.

So while it's technically true that eyewitness testimony in court is anecdotal, when that testimony is about the event in question (rather than, say, a character witness), then "anecdotal" is just completely irrelevant. It's not wrong to describe it as such, but it's pointless to do so. It adds nothing of any value. It's just a distraction.

I am unfamiliar with this broad use of 'anecdotal evidence' and am seeking a definition (not made up on the fly, a real one). Seriously, this is not just a semantic argument. Consider:

1. Upchurch says that GZ's testimony can be dismissed as anecdotal evidence.
2. He links a definition, defining it as 'evidence using anecdotes'.
3.The same source defines anecdotes as 'short, often funny stories with a point'. No secondary definitions are given, only specific applications, posted and quoted earlier.

I don't see this broader interpretation of anecdotal evidence defined anywhere, and Upchurch's dismissal of testimony relies on it.You, Upchurch, and Argumemnon all seem to agree that anecdotal is basically anything said by another party (plus or minus). Is there an external definition for this that you are aware of? I can't find one and I really would like to understand this. I'm not just quibbling.

 

[Belz...]

Your reasons are essentially arbitrary. You declare words to mean something other than they mean.

Please. It's patently obvious that the dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to stop following Martin and that's what was means by the phrase. It wasn't a direct command, either. It was a request.

But I see you disregarded my request to stop playing word games. Is it that important to be right? If somehow it were proven, for instance, that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, would it shatter your worldview? I suspect not, but for some reason you're only using the intepretation that fits with your conclusions.

And before you accuse me of the same, let me remind you that I don't have a definite conclusion about what happened that day.

 

[Belz...]

I am unfamiliar with this broad use of 'anecdotal evidence' and am seeking a definition (not made up on the fly, a real one). Seriously, this is not just a semantic argument. Consider:

1. Upchurch says that GZ's testimony can be dismissed as anecdotal evidence.
2. He links a definition, defining it as 'evidence using anecdotes'.
3.The same source defines anecdotes as 'short, often funny stories with a point'. No secondary definitions are given, only specific applications, posted and quoted earlier.

I don't see this broader interpretation of anecdotal evidence defined anywhere, and Upchurch's dismissal of testimony relies on it.You, Upchurch, and Argumemnon all seem to agree that anecdotal is basically anything said by another party (plus or minus). Is there an external definition for this that you are aware of? I can't find one and I really would like to understand this. I'm not just quibbling.

"Anecdotal" is "based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

Seems to fit even first-hand accounts to me.

 

[Thermal]

"Anecdotal" is "based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

Seems to fit even first-hand accounts to me.

If you don't mind, is that definition available externally? I was taught and have used 'anecdote' more consistently with Wiki's definition, if I knew where these different definitions came from it would go a long way with me towards clarifying terms. Not sure if this is a global issue, where in New Zealand for instance it is commonly used differently than in Canada, hence my problem finding definitions.

Quick edit: even if Upchurch is correct on the broader use, Zim's testimony underwent questioning, examination and consistency with other witnesses and evidence and would be superior to an unsupported narrative, which could be taken without weight.

 

[Belz...]

If you don't mind, is that definition available externally?

Not sure what you mean by "externally", but I found it by googling the word. You can also find it here:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdotal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotal

Quick edit: even if Upchurch is correct on the broader use, Zim's testimony underwent questioning, examination and consistency with other witnesses and evidence and would be superior to an unsupported narrative, which could be taken without weight.

We're talking about "anecdote" as opposed to physical evidence, here, so corroboration by other anecdotes doesn't make it not an anecdote, I think.