5 ms·
>While I do not doubt the logical validity of the skeptics positions, there is nevertheless a large body of evidence (circumstantial though it may be) which bec
by Permit 14y ago
>While I do not doubt the logical validity of the skeptics positions, there is nevertheless a large body of evidence (circumstantial though it may be) which becomes difficult to deny when taken in the aggregate.
I think it's incredibly important to remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
- andrewfelix 14y agoExactly. You could argue that God exists based on witness accounts.
- ktizo 14y agoI know god exists. elvis told me only last week, and the king never lies.
- calebmpeterson 14y ago> I think it's incredibly important to remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Honestly, where is the barrier between the two? I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, just genuinely asking where it is, or at least where it's near?
- grimboy 14y agoWell, roughly and someone may have a better answer. Data is collected in a structured, systematic way, and the sample is carefully chosen. Anecdotes are not structured or collected in a systematic way, but worst of all the sample you've taken is the people who've chosen to speak up.
- nazgulnarsil 14y agoAnecdotes ignore selection effects. Data tries to control for them.
- c3d 14y agoWhy would radar recordings or radioactive soil samples not count as data (in the same sense that fossils are data)?
- VMG 14y agoIf we assume that the readings are actually showing a physical phenomena and are not technical errors or forgeries, they are still just that: an unexplained radar recording and an unexplained radioactive soil sample. There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that ETs are responsible.