Anecdotal Evidence

[Edwardo Piet]

There's no such thing as anecdotal evidence. Anecdote is not evidence. Period. It's absolutely bullshit to say that our most important life decisions are based on hearsay... our most important life decisions are based on following either our head or our hearts. Period.

So not on science but on personal subjective experience.

Which makes it invalid.

And, by the way, Alasdair, it's your personal view (shared by some skeptics) that anecdotes are not evidence. But this is debatable.

Well, it's able to be debated. If you tell someone a story it's not evidence. That would make the Bible evidence.

And frankly, it's not the point anyway. Evidence or not, anecdotes at best can only provide very limited support to one's claims.

But they don't provide any support at all.

Also, my emphasis in your quote above. Regarding that emphasis: it's not true that evidence or not anything can provide support to one's claims. Something can only provide support to one's claims if it's evidence. Evidence is that which provides support to one's claims. So it's not true that evidence or not anecdotes can provide even limited support. Because it's not true that anything can provide even limited support, or that anything can provide any support, to one's claims, without it also being evidence. If it provides even limited support to the claims, then it's evidence.

But it can't be evidence because anecdotes are not evidence/support to one's claims. People may disagree, but that doesn't make it evidence. People may think something is evident to them but that doesn't make it evident to them. People think ghosts are evident to them.... and those people are wrong. When they think they perceive a ghost or that a ghost is evident to them, they're wrong. They objectively do not perceive such a thing. Their perceive no such ghost... it's merely that their senses tell them otherwise because their senses about their perceptions are insensible.

Now... regarding it "not being the point."It's my point. It's my point because this thread is about "anecdotal evidence" and that's an oxymoron. It's like "unproven proof".

It's like adding up a bunch of non-evidence and thinking that that makes it become evidence... or mistaking plausibility for probability....and...

...and basically it's analogous with this: It's like saying that if you add up enough zeros that that will make the number 1. Or saying that if the number 1 appeals to you enough, or the number 0 doesn't appeal to you enough, then you can pretend that the number 0 is the number 1. (In the analogy, the number "0" is non-evidence and the number "1" is evidence).