I'm not conflating the two, I'm saying hearsay is a type of evidence, it's just not a very good one. You can use hearsay to support your overall claim, but that can't be the only peice of evidence you use. It's not transferrable unless attached to a greater body of evidence.

There is a big logical difference between something that's a verifiable a fact and and assertion.

Yes, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not proof that something happened. They are a claim that something happened.

There is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to support the assertion.

We've just made the whole circle again. I think you may be accidentally conflating the meaning of evidence with the meaning of proof. Perhaps English is your second language?

"Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true."

Furthermore, legally speaking, both anecdotal evidence and hearsay have zero value if you really want to go down that route.

That is what I have been saying the entire time.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's clear that we have a very different definition for what the word evidence means. I don't think this discussion is productive at this point. Have a good day.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

It's clear that we have a very different definition for what the word evidence means.

My friend, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am simply trying to improve your ability to logically frame an argument.

If I wrote a scientific paper and claimed one piece of evidence was enough to prove my theory I would be laughed out of academia.

Have a good day.

You as well.