Responding to Personal Testimony

[bluejatheist]

A person comes up to you. They say they believe in Yahweh/Spirits/Numerology/[insert BS]. Their first and best piece of evidence? A long, awkward story about something that happened to them.

If there any case whatsoever where personal testimony should be taken seriously? Sure, I don't doubt that they're serious and believe it, but I do doubt they know what they actually saw. When someone pulls this, is it best just to stop it there and ask for other evidence, or must one sit through an entire story just to tell them "Sorry, but this really doesn't cut it?" I seriously dislike it when I have to deal with it, especially when it's a cheery happy 'this is a wonderful story I had' meanwhile I could be doing other stuff, like verifying tangible evidence. I'm listening to my set of skeptical podcasts and this happens and yet they take it seriously enough to listen. Is there a reason for this besides courtesy?

Same goes for claims of 'intuition' or 'feeling.' Is it worth giving them the time of day?


Yeah, I presume this is nothing new as a thread, but I'm more interested in making a discussion out of this than looking through archives, plus this will keep such a rather common point of contention where people will see it to read, rather than in the older pages that get overlooked, trololol

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Anecdotal evidence is great for appealing to people's emotions, but if someone is making extraordinary claims they really should have better evidence.

 

[bluejatheist]

Anecdotal evidence is great for appealing to people's emotions, but if someone is making extraordinary claims they really should have better evidence.

Yes I knew this, it's just dealing with them when you say so. Especially the cases of "So you're saying im a liar?

 

[The Felonius Pope]

The whole "So your calling me a liar?" thing is so petty. When someone asks why I doubt what they say, I always tell them that a position of uncertainty is the best way to go.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Anecdotal evidence is great for appealing to people's emotions, but if someone is making extraordinary claims they really should have better evidence.

Yes I knew this, it's just dealing with them when you say so. Especially the cases of "So you're saying im a liar?

What you do is calmly inform them that personal experience, though valid, qualifies as evidence for one person and one person only.

 

[Laurens]

Its hard to dismiss someone's personal testimony without sounding like you're insulting them.

I usually say something like; I understand that those experiences felt real to you, however modern advances in neuroscience and psychology tell us that the human brain is adept at creating illusory experiences that feel real, therefore I do not accept such personal testimony as being good enough evidence for me to believe in something.

With regards to people talking about coincidences I usually go on a lengthy rant about how we are incapable of understanding probability, culminating in the sentence 'so in actual fact it would be extremely improbable to live life and not experience some bizarre coincidences...'

 

[FiverBeyond]

My general take is that if someone focuses on personal, emotional testimony, feel free to do the same thing. Instead of trying to reason with them, explain from your heart why they should be more skeptical (e.g., the freedom of inquiry, the feeling of renewal that comes from shaking off religious bias, the inspirational world, etc).