"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

clip- Stories documented after the fact, no matter how seemingly compelling, are essentially useless as evidence,

I would agree with that if it said "scientific" evidence.

I would agree with that if it said "scientific" evidence.

Maybe with the modifier "empirical" scientific evidence.

Maybe with the modifier "empirical" scientific evidence.

Sure. I guess a lot of it for me hinges on whether you consider psychology a science. Isn't there a term "hard sciences?" Does that have an actual definition?

Sure. I guess a lot of it for me hinges on whether you consider psychology a science. Isn't there a term "hard sciences?" Does that have an actual definition?

I minored in psychology and have a reasonable amount of exposure to the research practices, and I sure wouldn't consider it an empirical science in a lot of ways. As far as I know that usually includes Bio, Chem, Physics and their offshoots. Not that that has any direct bearing on any of this.

I minored in psychology and have a reasonable amount of exposure to the research practices, and I sure wouldn't consider it an empirical sciences in a lot of ways. As far as I know that usually includes Bio, Chem, Physics and their offshoots. Not that that has any direct bearing on any of this.

I think like a lot things with different posters, it comes down to how people define the word and how they are using it in a certain circumstance.

Do you consider those eyewitness accounts to be "scientific" evidence?

There is no such term as '  "scientific" evidence' in my understanding, and the fact that you put scientific in quotes may be an indication that you think the same thing? I don't know.

Anyway to answer the question- 
I believe that all information gathered in support or opposition to something may be considered evidence as long as it is deemed a valid and accurate portrayal of the thing. Of course one would need to fully define "valid and accurate". You'll excuse me if I don't try and do that here and now.

For example- an eyewitness testimony is perfectly "valid". Now if for example, the testimony is given two weeks after the event, or was collected when the witness was drunk, one would most likely call the evidence weak, but that's a while different issue.

I would agree with that if it said "scientific" evidence.

As I say in a different post. I'm not aware of any such term.

There is no such term as '  "scientific" evidence' in my understanding, and the fact that you put scientific in quotes may be an indication that you think the same thing? I don't know.

Anyway to answer the question- 
I believe that all information gathered in support or opposition to something may be considered evidence as long as it is deemed a valid and accurate portrayal of the thing. Of course one would need to fully define "valid and accurate". You'll excuse me if I don't try and do that here and now.

For example- an eyewitness testimony is perfectly "valid". Now if for example, the testimony is given two weeks after the event, or was collected when the witness was drunk, one would most likely call the evidence weak, but that's a while different issue.

I can imagine gathering empirical scientific evidence for a chemical reaction. I can't imagine how one would gather that for reincarnation. Or for the existence of the ego.

I can imagine gathering empirical scientific evidence for a chemical reaction. I can't imagine how one would gather that for reincarnation. Or for the existence of the ego.

Would describing the smell of that reaction be considered "scientific"?

Would describing the smell of that reaction be considered "scientific"?

Not in the same way. 

In other words. Reincarnation can never be proven scientifically. (At least not with our current tool set.) There can be compelling evidence through testimony and recording birth marks.