Why anecdotes are not evidence (and are in fact dangerous)

[Lucy75 10]

So would you be comfortable drawing a conclusion just from anecdotal evidence?

 

You appear to be agreeing with me again that anecdotes are evidence.

 

I think JS is a child abuser, the only evidence I have to support that opinion is anecdotal, stories told by his victims.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

You appear to be agreeing with me again that anecdotes are evidence.

 

I think JS is a child abuser, the only evidence I have to support that opinion is anecdotal, stories told by his victims.

 

Is that a yes then. You're comfortable drawing a conclusion just from anecdotal evidence alone?

[Lucy75 10]

You overlooked a crucial point in your reply, central to this thread: the volume of anecdotal evidence, the common (alleged-) factual point(s) of which (same perpetrator, same MO, same timeline ,etc.>), past a critical volume threshold, become evidence.

 

I.e. the point at which there is sufficient anecdotal evidence aggregated to constitute statistical evidence, and at which that statistical evidence will be considered (the common points aggregated from all testimonies, not the individual testimonies) by courts and scientific communities indeed: it's a point that's been made to you before, I'm surprised you didn't grasp it when you typed your reply above.

 

I haven't overlooked anything, all I have done is demonstrate that anecdotes are evidence and the topic title is inaccurate.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2015 at 17:23 ----------

 

Is that a yes then. You're comfortable drawing a conclusion just from anecdotal evidence alone?

 

Didn't I just say that I am comfortable with the anecdotal evidence that supports my opinion that JS was a child abuser.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Lucy75

[Alien 10]

 

Didn't I just say that I am comfortable with the anecdotal evidence that supports my opinion that JS was a child abuser.

 

But not comfortable with the anecdotal references that supports you being a multi-name user (troll)? How does that work?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Didn't I just say that I am comfortable with the anecdotal evidence that supports my opinion that JS was a child abuser.

 

So you don't think that the police should have comprehensively analysed the anecdotes to confirm their validity? You're arguing that the anecdotes by themselves were enough to convince you.

[Lucy75 10]

So you don't think that the police should have comprehensively analysed the anecdotes to confirm their validity? You're arguing that the anecdotes by themselves were enough to convince you.

 

The anecdotes were evidence and it is the polices job to look at all the evidence, thankfully they didn't consider them to be useless and dangerous.

[Obelix 11]

I have been explaining my position since post 2 and providing supporting evidence.

 

You are a troll Smithy. You never change

[RootsBooster 24]

I haven't overlooked anything, all I have done is demonstrate that anecdotes are evidence and the topic title is inaccurate

 

You haven't demonstrated that anecdotes are evidence, you've merely claimed that anecdotes are evidence. You've so far refused deeper discussion of this (with myself).

 

Seeing as you're unwilling to shed light on what you think the words "fact" and "information" actually mean, we'll have to go back to your definition of the word 'evidence'.

 

Evidence

 

-The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

 

For an anecdote to be evidence, as described above, it would have to be a true story. Anything other than an honest account of events would not be indicative of whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Of course, there's a phrase for that already though, it's called an 'honest account'.

 

Because of this, it is not fair to say that anecdotes are evidence and it is certainly not fair to say that hundreds of corroborating anecdotes become reliable evidence (remember the one about that guy who walked on water centuries ago?).

 

It is fair to say that some anecdotes may be evidence, even then though, it is evidence that relies upon trust as it's basis so is still not reliable.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2015 at 18:40 ----------

 

You are a troll Smithy. You never change

 

He does, actually, he gets worse at cherry picking definitions and trying to stretch them to fit his arguments.

Edited March 19, 2015 by RootsBooster

[Lucy75 10]

You are a troll Smithy. You never change

 

I like this definition of troll.

 

A troll is someone who deliberately tries to disrupt a thread, often because they don't like the way it's going, they're probably losing the argument or can't think of a way to retaliate so they just muck it up one way or another.

 

There are rumours that there are even 'government' trolls who try to take down anti-government threads.

 

I have been discussing the topic from post 2, you on the other hand are just trying to disrupt a thread.

 

This one probably also applies.

 

It isnt exclusive to this forum. Its used, in my opinion as a cheap shot to try to diminish someone elses opinion without having to properly debate. Its like a bullying tac tic. Ive been here a short time and because im considered by some to be a prolific poster (not on here but in general) ive had my opinions belittled by a couple of people based purely on the fact ive posted a lot in a short time but thas my style. If i have something to say and i enjoy the environment then why shouldnt i say it?

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2015 at 18:49 ----------

 

You haven't demonstrated that anecdotes are evidence, you've merely claimed that anecdotes are evidence. You've so far refused deeper discussion of this (with myself).

 

Seeing as you're unwilling to shed light on what you think the words "fact" and "information" actually mean, we'll have to go back to your definition of the word 'evidence'.

 

 

 

For an anecdote to be evidence, as described above, it would have to be a true story. Anything other than an honest account of events would not be indicative of whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Of course, there's a phrase for that already though, it's called an 'honest account'.

 

Because of this, it is not fair to say that anecdotes are evidence and it is certainly not fair to say that hundreds of corroborating anecdotes become reliable evidence (remember the one about that guy who walked on water centuries ago?).

 

It is fair to say that some anecdotes may be evidence, even then though, it is evidence that relies upon trust as it's basis so is still not reliable.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2015 at 18:40 ----------

 

 

He does, actually, he gets worse at cherry picking definitions and trying to stretch them to fit his arguments.

 

 

And yet you agree with me that anecdotes can be evidence.

 

Again you agree with me that anecdotes can be evidence and shouldn't be dismissed as useless and dangerous.

 

Most anecdotes are true even though you do not think so, the person telling the story knows that the story they are telling is true and factual.

[ronthenekred 10]

You are a troll Smithy. You never change

 

It would seem by his own messed up sense of logic he's conceded to that, he just doesn't seem to be aware of it.

 

I really believe he believes he's the embodiment of the fictional character. I'm quite happy with it staying that way, such a let down to be confronted with the probable Lucy reality.

 

The poster seems to have an affinity with fictional characters. he sees as real. Weird.

Edited March 19, 2015 by ronthenekred

[RootsBooster 24]

And yet you agree with me that anecdotes can be evidence.

Isn't that you agreeing with me?

Whilst you claimed that anecdotes are evidence and that hundreds of corroborating anecdotes are reliable evidence, I have only said that some anecdotes may be evidence, a kind of evidence which is largely not reliable.

Again you agree with me that anecdotes can be evidence and shouldn't be dismissed as useless and dangerous.

No agreement there, in the vast majority of cases anecdotes are not reliable so have no real use, they can be dangerous because plenty of people will latch on to them through confirmation bias to reinforce their own beliefs and/or agendas.

 

Most anecdotes are true even though you do not think so, the person telling the story knows that the story they are telling is true and factual.

Where on Earth do you get that from?

[Lucy75 10]

Isn't that you agreeing with me?

Whilst you claimed that anecdotes are evidence and that hundreds of corroborating anecdotes are reliable evidence, I have only said that some anecdotes may be evidence, a kind of evidence which is largely not reliable.

 

No agreement there, in the vast majority of cases anecdotes are not reliable so have no real use, they can be dangerous because plenty of people will latch on to them through confirmation bias to reinforce their own beliefs and/or agendas.

 

Where on Earth do you get that from?

 

Langley unreliable, so you agree that some can be reliable.

Vast majority, so you agree that some are reliable.

Can be dangerous but not all dangerous.

 

 

 

In my experience most people are honest so it follows that most anecdotal stories are truthful.