Sounds like you're twisting things around with a kind of word game
here. I don't know what your profession is but it seems to me that
"observed evidence" is only convincing with reference to the specific
event observed, and is not a (legal? if that's what you're getting at)
basis for jumping to generalized conclusions about what always or
usually happens.

And to simply dismiss out of hand any source whose information
contradicts your anecdotal and personal observations, is not a
compelling argument technique. It sounds like circular logic to me -
you won't accept any testimonial that counters your beliefs, because
you automatically assume the source is biased propoganda. Makes it
hard to convince you that there might be anything worth knowing that
you don't already know.

richforman