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

[ronthenekred 10]

I presume you never watch TV news interviews of any description then...No talk shows...No magazine shows....(all anecdotal)....Cos they're all 'misleading..or dangerous'.

 

Serious is when all you have are anecdotes (unrestricted) when at trial as irrefutable I would think. I would shudder at the thought of a death sentence handed down based on anecdotes. Anecdotes in scientific study would almost certainly be useless as facts. Media is entertainment therefore is not restrained.

 

If you understand 'anecdote' as a broad brush to explain and quantify all and anything, then yes they are irrefutable without question. Thing is you first have to understand and accept the term as that.

 

Interesting, obscure or amusing are not factual to the relevance, they are anecdotal.

 

On that basis I agree with the op.

Edited March 20, 2015 by ronthenekred

[PeteMorris 10]

Serious is when all you have are anecdotes (unrestricted) when at trial as irrefutable I would think. I would shudder at the thought of a death sentence handed down based on anecdotes. Anecdotes in scientific study would almost certainly be useless as facts. Media is entertainment therefore is not restrained.

 

If you understand 'anecdote' as a broad brush to explain and quantify all and anything, then yes they are irrefutable without question. Thing is you first have to understand and accept the term as that.

 

Interesting, obscure or amusing are not factual to the relevance, they are anecdotal.

 

On that basis I agree with the op.

 

I'm not at all disputing that in science, they deal with hard facts...Or in the court (mostly) they deal with facts (I say mostly, cos what would be the point of witnesses, or witness statements?)

 

My problem with the OP is that he tries to apply factual science to every thread...and it's just not possible....Yes he puts forward good sound arguments (mostly)...But gets bogged down with "Where's your evidence"...

[ronthenekred 10]

I'm not at all disputing that in science, they deal with hard facts...Or in the court (mostly) they deal with facts (I say mostly, cos what would be the point of witnesses, or witness statements?)

 

My problem with the OP is that he tries to apply factual science to every thread...and it's just not possible....Yes he puts forward good sound arguments (mostly)...But gets bogged down with "Where's your evidence"...

 

Maybe because in cyclones case "anecdotes" are forwarded as facts/evidence. Asking for it would seem reasonable which allows the debater to provide it, proving cyclone is correct or incorrect.

 

Many users on here finish with, FACT as though bold and capitols make it so. I've never encountered cyclone using that trick or run from a question..

Edited March 20, 2015 by ronthenekred

[Lucy75 10]

Maybe because in cyclones case "anecdotes" are forwarded as facts/evidence. Asking for it would seem reasonable which allows the debater to provide it, proving cyclone is correct or incorrect.

 

Many users on here finish with, FACT as though bold and capitols make it so. I've never encountered cyclone using that trick or run from a question..

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact

FACT

A thing that is known or proved to be true:

 

So, I might know something to be true even though I can't prove it.

 

I know that acupuncture relieves my pain, it's a FACT.

I also know for a FACT that the pain of some people isn't relieved by acupuncture.

 

There is no scientific data to support acupuncture, all the scientific studies say it shouldn't work, yet the anecdotal evidence of thousands if not millions of people say it does work.

[ronthenekred 10]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact

FACT

A thing that is known or proved to be true:

 

So, I might know something to be true even though I can't prove it.

 

I know that acupuncture relieves my pain, it's a FACT.

I also know for a FACT that the pain of some people isn't relieved by acupuncture.

 

There is no scientific data to support acupuncture, all the scientific studies say it shouldn't work, yet the anecdotal evidence of thousands if not millions of people say it does work.

 

I know what fact is, you don't have to forward the definition. Typing it in capitols and bold alone doesn't make it fact. Let alone typing anything in bold and capitols for that matter.

 

God is my dad. FACT

 

Get it?

 

Anyway, I thought you were outa here?

Edited March 20, 2015 by ronthenekred

[Lucy75 10]

I know what fact is, you don't have to forward the definition. Typing it in capitols and bold doesn't make it fact. Let alone typing anything in bold and capitols for that matter.

 

God is my dad. FACT

 

Get it?

 

Anyway, I thought you were outa here?

 

I just copied and pasted it from your post.

 

Why not counter the acupuncture example, no scientific date to prove it works, lots of anecdotal evidence which proves it works and million of the people that know for a fact that it works.

 

Are you of the opinion that they have no right to use the work fact if they can't prove it to you?

 

I have no issues with people stating for a fact that God is their father.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Lucy75

[ronthenekred 10]

I just copied and pasted it from your post.

 

And?

 

Why not counter the acupuncture example, no scientific date to prove it works, lots of anecdotal evidence which proves it works and million of the people that know for a fact that it works.

 

When you answer questions you've avoided by others then yes I'll counter. Otherwise the thread will become a question debate without answers.

 

Are you of the opinion that they have no right to use the work fact if they can't prove it to you?

 

No, I'm of the opinion that don't use the word fact unless you can provide the evidence when asked.

 

I have no issues with people stating for a fact that God is their father.

 

I'm happy for you. FACT

[Cyclone 10]

I'm not at all disputing that in science, they deal with hard facts...Or in the court (mostly) they deal with facts (I say mostly, cos what would be the point of witnesses, or witness statements?)

 

My problem with the OP is that he tries to apply factual science to every thread...and it's just not possible....Yes he puts forward good sound arguments (mostly)...But gets bogged down with "Where's your evidence"...

 

In some threads (objective ones, about sociological phenomena, or physical phenomena or similar) there is a correct answer to whatever the question is.

If you assert that X is the answer, then expect to be asked to prove it. And "well it happened to me" or "I observed it a few times" is not a valid proof.

 

I certainly don't try to apply the scientific method to every thread. Some are subjective, and there's really little point in debating something that's subjective since it's entirely possible for us all to have valid yet different opinions.

 

Many threads start with an axiom though, which is often not true, or at least is unsubstantiated.

 

"The city centre is in decline, what should the council do"

"Cyclists are the cause of all congestion, how can we punish them"

"The police helicopter causes drug dealers to launch fireworks and the council to spend it's entire budget hiring overpaid executive gay muslim lesbians"

 

In each case, the assertion needs to be questioned and evidence requested before the debate about the why or the what to do can go anywhere.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2015 at 15:45 ----------

 

I presume you never watch TV news interviews of any description then...No talk shows...No magazine shows....(all anecdotal)....Cos they're all 'misleading..or dangerous'.

 

I said "in serious discussion". Not in "entertainment TV".

[L00b 441]

I'm not at all disputing that in science, they deal with hard facts...Or in the court (mostly) they deal with facts (I say mostly, cos what would be the point of witnesses, or witness statements?)

The point of witnesses and witness statements in judicial systems is to support (give context to-) facts: witness statements are not facts in and of themselves, they are merely 'formal/sworn assertions'. Those witness statements unsupported by facts are paid less than lip service by most courts. It's only once their volume becomes statistically significant, and consistently exhibit commonality of alleged facts, that such alleged facts start to get heeded by courts (by and large, this is the same principle as the volume of anecdotal evidence required to establish trends in scientific contexts).

 

E.g. if, in a witness statement, I state that my name is Joe Bloggs and that I am a shareholder and director of limited company ABC of <address>, then that is just an assertion which I swear to be truth.

 

These assertions will only be held by the court to have value as factual *IF* I prove these assertions, e.g. with attaching evidence of fact as exhibits to my witness statement for supporting each of my assertions: e.g. a copy of my passport as Exhibit A (so, my name is factual), and Companies House extracts as Exhibit B, namely a copy of the articles of incorporation of company ABC (so, it is factual that ABC is incorporated at <address> and Joe Bloggs is listed as a shareholder) and of the appointments of company ABC (it is factual that Joe Bloggs is a current director of ABC).

 

Edited March 20, 2015 by L00b

[PeteMorris 10]

In some threads (objective ones, about sociological phenomena, or physical phenomena or similar) there is a correct answer to whatever the question is.

If you assert that X is the answer, then expect to be asked to prove it. And "well it happened to me" or "I observed it a few times" is not a valid proof.

 

I certainly don't try to apply the scientific method to every thread. Some are subjective, and there's really little point in debating something that's subjective since it's entirely possible for us all to have valid yet different opinions.

 

Many threads start with an axiom though, which is often not true, or at least is unsubstantiated.

 

"The city centre is in decline, what should the council do"

"Cyclists are the cause of all congestion, how can we punish them"

"The police helicopter causes drug dealers to launch fireworks and the council to spend it's entire budget hiring overpaid executive gay muslim lesbians"

 

In each case, the assertion needs to be questioned and evidence requested before the debate about the why or the what to do can go anywhere.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2015 at 15:45 ----------

 

 

I said "in serious discussion". Not in "entertainment TV".

 

I wouldn't disagree with your first answer.....But do wonder then why you 'do' participate in the more 'subjective' threads....

 

Also your final point....Is the news (which is one of the things I cited amongst other programs) entertainment?...I don't find things on the news 'entertainment'....(mind you, it depends who they're interviewing..If you get my drift )....But of course any interviews done on there is anecdotal.

[Cyclone 10]

I don't often. And I don't ask for evidence to support subjective opinions as none is required.

 

If the news is reporting a single event then what proof might I ask them for that they aren't already providing? Anecdotes aren't proof of trends, but assuming they're true, they are proof that the single event happened.

[PeteMorris 10]

I don't often. And I don't ask for evidence to support subjective opinions as none is required.

 

If the news is reporting a single event then what proof might I ask them for that they aren't already providing? Anecdotes aren't proof of trends, but assuming they're true, they are proof that the single event happened.

 

So they are supportive of an event or trend, or whatever?....Not in fact dangerous?