Fair, I’m just noting that the anecdotal evidence itself is not actual evidence. Like if you saw a documented car crash and from that started extrapolating that car crashes are very common, that’s using anecdotal evidence. If you had somebody come to you and say there are a lot of car crashes happening, that’s just an unsubstantiated claim. I’m saying that what you refer to as anecdotal evidence doesn’t even live up to that standard.
It’s not a semantic dispute it’s a very important difference. Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don’t know whether it’s statistically significant or not. On the other hand, hearsay is information that’s received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate, a rumor. Trying to conflate these two things is disingenuous.
Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don’t know whether it’s statistically significant or not.
I don’t believe that’s what anecdotal evidence means. Anecdotal evidence is generally understood to be information based on personal observations.
Hearsay is reporting what other people attest to have observed. Logically and legally they are weighted the same. There is no logical difference between trusting what someone says, and believing what someone says someone said.
I think we are having a misunderstanding of what evidence means. Evidence isn’t something that supports reality, it support your argument or theory. There may be anecdotal evidence that a million people are in encampments, but that just means someone reported it. It’s not good evidence, and can be dismissed as easily as someone reporting the opposite. However, it is technically defined as evidence.
Again, you’re conflating two different things here. Evidence and hearsay are simply not the same thing. There is a big logical difference between something that’s a verifiable a fact and and assertion. The accusation of a million people being held in encampments is the latter. There is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to support the assertion. Furthermore, legally speaking, both anecdotal evidence and hearsay have zero value if you really want to go down that route.
Again, you’re conflating two different things here. Evidence and hearsay are simply not the same thing.
I’m not conflating the two, I’m saying hearsay is a type of evidence, it’s just not a very good one. You can use hearsay to support your overall claim, but that can’t be the only peice of evidence you use. It’s not transferrable unless attached to a greater body of evidence.
There is a big logical difference between something that’s a verifiable a fact and and assertion.
Yes, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not proof that something happened. They are a claim that something happened.
There is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to support the assertion.
We’ve just made the whole circle again. I think you may be accidentally conflating the meaning of evidence with the meaning of proof. Perhaps English is your second language?
“Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.”
Furthermore, legally speaking, both anecdotal evidence and hearsay have zero value if you really want to go down that route.
It’s clear that we have a very different definition for what the word evidence means. I don’t think this discussion is productive at this point. Have a good day.
Fair, I’m just noting that the anecdotal evidence itself is not actual evidence. Like if you saw a documented car crash and from that started extrapolating that car crashes are very common, that’s using anecdotal evidence. If you had somebody come to you and say there are a lot of car crashes happening, that’s just an unsubstantiated claim. I’m saying that what you refer to as anecdotal evidence doesn’t even live up to that standard.
I would say that’s a semantic dispute.
The incorrect application of logic in this scenario is still making a claim drawn on too little evidence, not an inherent problem with the evidence.
It’s not a semantic dispute it’s a very important difference. Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don’t know whether it’s statistically significant or not. On the other hand, hearsay is information that’s received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate, a rumor. Trying to conflate these two things is disingenuous.
I don’t believe that’s what anecdotal evidence means. Anecdotal evidence is generally understood to be information based on personal observations.
Hearsay is reporting what other people attest to have observed. Logically and legally they are weighted the same. There is no logical difference between trusting what someone says, and believing what someone says someone said.
I think we are having a misunderstanding of what evidence means. Evidence isn’t something that supports reality, it support your argument or theory. There may be anecdotal evidence that a million people are in encampments, but that just means someone reported it. It’s not good evidence, and can be dismissed as easily as someone reporting the opposite. However, it is technically defined as evidence.
Again, you’re conflating two different things here. Evidence and hearsay are simply not the same thing. There is a big logical difference between something that’s a verifiable a fact and and assertion. The accusation of a million people being held in encampments is the latter. There is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to support the assertion. Furthermore, legally speaking, both anecdotal evidence and hearsay have zero value if you really want to go down that route.
I’m not conflating the two, I’m saying hearsay is a type of evidence, it’s just not a very good one. You can use hearsay to support your overall claim, but that can’t be the only peice of evidence you use. It’s not transferrable unless attached to a greater body of evidence.
Yes, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not proof that something happened. They are a claim that something happened.
We’ve just made the whole circle again. I think you may be accidentally conflating the meaning of evidence with the meaning of proof. Perhaps English is your second language?
“Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.”
That is what I have been saying the entire time.
It’s clear that we have a very different definition for what the word evidence means. I don’t think this discussion is productive at this point. Have a good day.
My friend, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am simply trying to improve your ability to logically frame an argument.
If I wrote a scientific paper and claimed one piece of evidence was enough to prove my theory I would be laughed out of academia.
You as well.