This came up recently in a couple of other posts where I and a philosopher have been having a long, rambling discussion that’s had trouble sticking to a single point. That can be fun on occasion so I don’t mind a bit of meandering but one thing that I’ve noticed, and this isn’t meant to belittle my opponent, but they seem to be reacting in much the same way that I see with a lot of theists. “You just don’t understand!” Yet they seem incapable of just pointing out what I don’t understand, even though I’ve asked on several occasions, but more important than that, they don’t seem to be able to explain, in detail, *WHY* I’m supposedly wrong. Present your evidence and that doesn’t seem to be happening.
I’ve been having a couple of different conversations of late but two in particular seem to dovetail nicely. First, there was one with a theist who insisted that we had to take things like the laws of logic on blind faith and secondly, one going on over on my YouTube channel right now with a philosopher who seems very self-satisfied that philosophy is the end-all-be-all of human intellect.
So, as is no surprise, Matt Dillahunty is wrong once again. He claimed, on a recent video from The Line, that anecdotal evidence is, in fact, evidence. It’s not. It’s a claim. In and of itself, it doesn’t actually demonstrate anything.