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

[Lucy75 10]

So there isn't anything that anyone could say to you that could pursued you that you were wrong?

 

Yes you could present evidence to support the claim that anecdotes are never used as evidence.

[L00b 441]

When the courts and scientific community stop using anecdotes as evidence and dismiss them out of hand I would likley change my opinion.

You'll be relieved to learn that you can change your opinion now: neither the courts nor the scientific community ever use anecdotal evidence as evidence of fact, they only ever rely on it after it is assessed and verified by (independent and corroborating-) evidence of fact. If it cannot be verified, anecdotal evidence isn't afforded any evidential weight worth speaking about

 

EDIT: before you reply and start to split hair or build strawmen, I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the various types of evidence (of which there are quite a few) and their respective weighing by either a court (and within that, whether a civil court (balance of probabilities test) or a criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt test)) or a scientific community.

Edited March 19, 2015 by L00b

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Yes you could present evidence to support the claim that anecdotes are never used as evidence.

 

And that is the only way to change your mind?

 

So it would have to be "never"?

 

What people are arguing is that by itself it's an extremely unreliable form of evidence, and as due to this unreliability any conclusions drawn solely from anecdotal experiences should not be considered sound.

 

So you're saying that if someone managed to convince you of this argument, you'd still consider that it's fine to use anecdotes as evidence, because they haven't managed to pursued you of the claim that anecdotes aren't ever used as evidence?

[Alien 10]

 

In which post did I say that anecdotes are overwhelming evidence.

 

hundreds of anecdotes saying the same become reliable.

Become reliable as what? Back to my premise and your logic, if hundreds of anecdotes saying the same are reliable why aren't you sharing that premise? You seem to be arguing with yourself.

You also appear to be using anecdotal evidence to support a theory that I am someone else, which means you must agree with me that anecdotes are evidence.

 

No, you misunderstood, I was ascribing to your logic, not defending it. I agree that anecdotal references are not evidence to your guilt of being a troll. On the other hand why would anyone imitate your style over and over again?

 

We are not privy to your IP address, should that be the case you'd be bang to rights.

[Lucy75 10]

You'll be relieved to learn that you can change your opinion now: neither the courts nor the scientific community ever use anecdotal evidence as evidence of fact, they only ever rely on it after it is assessed and verified by (independent and corroborating-) evidence of fact. If it cannot be verified, anecdotal evidence isn't afforded any evidential weight worth speaking about

 

EDIT: before you reply and start to split hair or build strawmen, I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the various types of evidence (of which there are quite a few) and their respective weighing by either a court (and within that, whether a civil court (balance of probabilities test) or a criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt test)) or a scientific community.

 

I have no reason to change my opinion because you have just confirmed that it was correct, as in the case of the thirty year old child abuse cases, the only evidence they had was anecdotal evidence form many different people all backing up each others stories, no DNA, no pictures, no fingerprints, just the stories told by many different people.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2015 at 16:52 ----------

 

And that is the only way to change your mind?

 

So it would have to be "never"?

 

What people are arguing [b]is that by itself it's an extremely unreliable form of evidence,[/b] and as due to this unreliability any conclusions drawn solely from anecdotal experiences should not be considered sound.

 

So you're saying that if someone managed to convince you of this argument, you'd still consider that it's fine to use anecdotes as evidence, because they haven't managed to pursued you of the claim that anecdotes aren't ever used as evidence?

 

I have agreed with that on several occasion and at no time I have I ever said anything to the contrary, but at least you agree with me that it is evidence.

[Obelix 11]

 

So a DNA sample is also not a not a "body" of evidence so just like the anecdote should it also be dismissed?

 

A DNA sample that creates a match on a database is not a body of evidence. It's a data point. That's all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

 

Appeal to authority is a classical fallacy, and Wikipedia is a really stupid reference source to use if you care about accuracy or integrity.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2015 at 16:57 ----------

 

Yes you could present evidence to support the claim that anecdotes are never used as evidence.

 

Anecdotally you sound to me like MrSmith.

 

By your own logic I therefore call you a troll.

[RootsBooster 24]

That argument works both ways, you give me your definitions of the words and explain where you are going with your line of inquiry and it will eliminate ambiguity.

 

I think it was this that sparked this debate.

No it doesn't work both ways, you've requested that someone counters your argument, for some reason you've either gone all coy about explaining your position (your definition of the words 'information' and 'fact') or you simply don't know which definition you're using.

I could take a stab at which one you're using but that would just reduce the discussion to a guessing game, why not just tell me?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I have agreed with that on several occasion and at no time I have I ever said anything to the contrary, but at least you agree with me that it is evidence.

 

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

[Lucy75 10]

A DNA sample that creates a match on a database is not a body of evidence. It's a data point. That's all.

 

 

 

Appeal to authority is a classical fallacy, and Wikipedia is a really stupid reference source to use if you care about accuracy or integrity.

 

---------- Post added 19-03-2015 at 16:57 ----------

 

 

Anecdotally you sound to me like MrSmith.

 

By your own logic I therefore call you a troll.

 

I didn't appeal to authority I just posted evidence to support my opinion.

 

Another link to support my opinion.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-dna-and-fingerprint-provisions/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-how-dna-and-fingerprint-evidence-is-protected-in-law

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: how DNA and fingerprint evidence is protected in law.

 

They appear to think that DNA and fingerprints are evidence.

[L00b 441]

I have no reason to change my opinion because you have just confirmed that it was correct, as in the case of the thirty year old child abuse cases, the only evidence they had was anecdotal evidence form many different people all backing up each others stories, no DNA, no pictures, no fingerprints, just the stories told by many different people.

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.

[Lucy75 10]

No it doesn't work both ways, you've requested that someone counters your argument, for some reason you've either gone all coy about explaining your position (your definition of the words 'information' and 'fact') or you simply don't know which definition you're using.

I could take a stab at which one you're using but that would just reduce the discussion to a guessing game, why not just tell me?

 

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

[Alien 10]

.

 

They appear to think that DNA and fingerprints are evidence.

 

Evidence of what?