- #36
my_wan
- 868
- 3
H8wm4m said:my_wan,
I have attempted to summarize the argument you are opposing.
1. Anecdotes are a form of evidence.
2. Anecdotes are always or nearly always provided in support of paranormal claims.
3. Some debunkers say there is no evidence for such claims.
Therefore, some debunkers lie.
Are either of the 3 premises invalid?
If so, then the argument is unsound.
Does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?
If not, then the argument is unsound.
What do you think?
1. makes the logical error of being true by definition yet failing to provide evidence for that which is being claimed. You then specify the evidence as pertaining to claims in 3, a specification not contained in 1.
The logic in 1. requires the law of the excluded middle, i.e., it excludes a third possibility, yet you include the "middle" in 3. when you say "evidence for such claims". "Evidence" and "evidence of X" are not even the same logical category.
CEL said:The truth about the report of an event needs two conditions:
1. The event must be true.
2. The person reporting it must believe it is true.
Even in the rarer situations where the witness outright lies about the event the anecdote is still evidence of 'something'. The belief of the witness has nothing to do with the truth of what occurred, it is still evidence of 'something'. Courts know that eyewitnesses are 'the most' unreliable form of evidence. It is so easy it is trivial to convince people they said things they didn't say and seen things they didn't see. I do it all the time.