I feel you're not speaking to my actual argument, so I want to try to clear something up:
> Actual expertise trumps ignorance and anecdotes, always.
You are not an expert in other peoples experiences, only your own. We have a case here where one guy says "this could never happen". Another guy says "I used to do that all the time". Only one of them can be right, even though we accept both of their experiences as true.
If the first guy simply said "I never saw that happen, and I never heard of it happening, and therefore I doubt that it could happen", then they could both be right, and the evidence matches both of their beliefs.
The mistake is to go from "I never saw that happen, and I never heard of it happening" to "It cannot/did not happen", especially when someone else says it did happen.
That's all I'm arguing. I am not doubting your experience.
> Actual expertise trumps ignorance and anecdotes, always.
You are not an expert in other peoples experiences, only your own. We have a case here where one guy says "this could never happen". Another guy says "I used to do that all the time". Only one of them can be right, even though we accept both of their experiences as true.
If the first guy simply said "I never saw that happen, and I never heard of it happening, and therefore I doubt that it could happen", then they could both be right, and the evidence matches both of their beliefs.
The mistake is to go from "I never saw that happen, and I never heard of it happening" to "It cannot/did not happen", especially when someone else says it did happen.
That's all I'm arguing. I am not doubting your experience.