AuldSoul:
Just as the Allegory of the Cave is a terrific allegory if you don't analyze it for real world likelihood, this one is a terrific allegory.
Blowing your own trumpet a bit, aren't you? You're smart but you're no Plato!
One day, you are stung by a bee. You are the only human who has ever been stung by a bee. We will assume—for the sake of argument—that you are not highly allergic and will not go into anaphylactic shock due to the experience. You have a small reddened area on your skin, and a tiny little hole that you can really only see if you know exactly where to look.
The problem with this is that we all know bees exist. Pretending we live in a world where we don't know this but they still really exist just complicates things. It also heavily biases things in your favour, as it puts me in a hypothetical situation where I know something which happens to be true, but the rest of the world won't believe me because I have no evidence, the situation you believe yourself to be in. You may want to substitute "slapped by a kronk" for "stung by a bee" and see if that changes your views at all. But because that's just going to lengthen the argument, I'll try to do it your way.
One day, you are stung by a bee. You are the only human who has ever been stung by a bee. We will assume—for the sake of argument—that you are not highly allergic and will not go into anaphylactic shock due to the experience. You have a small reddened area on your skin, and a tiny little hole that you can really only see if you know exactly where to look.
You have no demonstrable proof of your experience. But it was real, although you are the only one who knows it was real. At this point you have knowledge that is not possessed by any other human. You have learned that (1) bees exist, (2) can sting, (3) the sting hurts badly, and (4) that the sting can produce a red patch on the skin.Now, within the parameters this thought exercise try to think through how you would explain the event to someone else.
OK, so I've been stung by this yellow-and-black insect that I've decided to call a bee. The evidence I present is inconclusive. People look at the spot, but it could be acne. Perhaps it is, and I just imagined the bee and the sting. Is it really likely I was stung by a yellow-and-black insect? Unfortunately, I don't know. Perhaps wasps and yellowjackets and hornets exist and are well-known in this imaginary universe. Or perhaps not. Have I really discovered a brand new species without even trying? That seems quite unlikely in any universe close enough to ours to be worth considering.
But perhaps I have. So I go forth with my evidence. "Look at the mark on my arm", I announce to the world. "That can only have been done by a yellow-and-black striped social insect that makes honey from nectar and lives in colonies made of hexagonal cells". Why don't they believe me? Because I have no basis for making any of those claims. At best, I can claim I'm fairly sure it was a yellow-and-black insect I encountered. I'm positive it stung or bit me (probably stung). But I don't have evidence of a bee. I know nothing about them. Perhaps the one that stung me just spontaneously came into existence and then just as suddenly disappeared. As we're dealing with a phenomenon that's never been experienced by anyone in the history of the world, I'm hesistant to be dogmatic.
Let's adjust the parameters. Assume that there is a large percentage of the population that has seen bees. Assume that a smaller percentage of the population has actually been stung by bees. Assume no one has ever captured or studied a bee.
According to what I read from Terry, kid-A, and Funky Derek, it seems that given these parameters you three would not believe in bees unless you had personally seen and/or been stung by a bee.
The words "giant squid" come to mind. As I wrote repeatedly, I'm quite prepared to consider the weight of evidence, and the balance of probabilities. If numerous very similar descriptions of yellow-and-black insects that sting people have been reported from independent sources, then I would be inclined to believe they existed. I would wonder why none have ever been captured or studied. That's a little harder to explain for beeds than for giant squid - but then, that's the glaring flaw in your allegory.
Which is my point. In this last case, there would be no demonstrable evidence but there would be personal evidence. Personal evidence sufficient to compel belief. And the only sort of explanation that could be offered in such a case would be...testimonial, which is not demonstrable evidence. It is not a valid basis for someone else's belief, but your personal experience is valid basis for your own belief. Even if your personal experience involved a pink unicorn.
Either bees exist or they do not. There can never be conclusive evidence that they do not. For me to believe that they do exist, I need it to be more likely that they exist than that they do not, given what I know. One person who claims to have been stung by a bee when nobody else has ever encountered one, does not provide me with sufficient evidence - even, perhaps, when I am that person. A significant number of similar claims would shift the balance somewhat, but only if they were independent, not easily explained by other factors (such as the yellow-and-black mildly poisonous seed pods of the puedam tree) and if there was an explanation why these creatures were widely observed but never studied or captured.
Try the allegory with pink unicorns, kronks, vampires, angels or gods. See how it stands up. It doesn't work too well with bees because we have to imagine a whole different universe, without enough information about certain important paramaters. If we keep it in our universe, we don't have this problem, and we also lose the bias that comes from knowing that the entities in question really do exist. So let's do it. I've got a small mark on my neck. That means I was bitten by a vampire. Do you believe me? Why/why not?
(From another post:)
I have never met AudeSapere in person. She claims to have broken her knee and ankle. Did she? I have no tangible evidence, but I believe her even without her making the trip to Georgia to show me. Does that make me a schmuck? I don't think so.
Would you still believe her if she claimed she had broken her knee during a lapse in concentration while levitating six feet above the ground? Why/why not? You have exactly the same amount of evidence.
