From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:43:06 -0800, hermes wrote:   
      
   > I decided to open a new thread of discussion because   
   > "Hypnagogic Hallucinations" was growing huge.   
      
   >> occurring _at the time it normally happens_, is more likely than it   
   >> being due to something which is anecdotal at best.   
   > I am writing this because of your expression "anecdotal at best".   
   >   
   > Perhaps I am a very naive person, perhaps I am not rational enough. Or,   
   > let's face it, maybe I am plain stupid. In this case, you should not   
   > waste your time in trying to convince me.   
      
   Actually, in that last post I wasn't, I wasn't - I was just trying to   
   "calibrate" your estimation of probability.   
      
   > Within this context, I find the expression "anecdotal at best" slightly   
   > offensive, and certainly not friendly at all. Many of the users of   
   > alt.out-of-body believe in certain phenomena that you would describe as   
   > impossible.   
      
   Nope.  Just unproven to a sufficient level of proof.   
      
   > Clairvoyance is but an example. If you want to participate   
   > in these discussions as a civilized and polite person, maybe you should   
   > not label them as anecdotal, or worse, just because they express their   
   > convictions. I strongly believe in the possibility of expressing   
   > opposite opinions in a polite and, why not, friendly manner.   
      
   You are taking offence where none was intended - the expression "anecdotal   
   at best" precisely describes the degree of proof offered for these   
   phenomena.   
      
   There are clearly different levels of proof - from "scientific",   
   if you like, through "courtroom" right down to "hearsay" - with anecdotal   
   somewhere above hearsay.   
      
   So, tales of mysterious nocturnal voices are, in general, hearsay - but,   
   in this specific case, anecdotal (since you are the reporter of the event).   
      
   I'm assuming that you're telling the truth in your story, hence what we   
   are talking about is "anecdotal at best", ie. anecdotal assuming that   
   you're telling the truth (the best case).   
      
   I certainly didn't mean to imply any disparagement; but, your version _is_   
   an anecdote - you have no objective proof, and we have no way to raise it   
   to even a courtroom level of proof because you've had ample opportunity to   
   unknowingly pollute the evidence by discussing it with the other party.   
      
   Again, I'm sorry if you found the term offensive - it wasn't intended to   
   be, and I hope you understand now, that I'm just trying to be precise.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)