Anecdotal Evidence

[Pat Mustard]

Tazzycorn

What you, and many people, don't get is that there is no point where anecdote becomes evidence. That is because anecdotes are based on personal memories, which are extremely fallible, due to having huge fallibility isseues, prejudice issues and unconscious bias issues (which apply equally to me as to thee). As a result they are not testable, verifiable or replicable, and therefore do not satisfy criteria needed ot qualify as evidence.

That being said anecdotes have a use in science, as they can point out interesting areas for further research, but for the research to be valid the initial anecdote has to be dropped, just as initial results from anything else that leads to a research study. The reason can be seen with card reading research in the 70s where initial high results weren't discarded for subsequent trials [initial high score predicters were invited back for further prediction tests], and people reverted to the mean in tests a lot more slowly than they should have. If the first results were dicarded for subsequent tests the results would have immediately been seen as random.

So from what others have argued, I'm guessing, that I should believe that the scientist from the first positive tests, where either lying or delusional?  Since the test's could not be repeated, they must be mistaken or in some way they did not occur as reported.

Please elaborate as to what you're talking about. Because what you are saying now is nonsense.