Anecdotal Evidence

[Ravenshire]

If one person reports something odd, it's an anecdote. If 1,000 people report something odd, it's qualitative evidence.

If one person reports something odd, it's a delusion. If 1,000 people report something odd, it's a mass delusion.

[RoadRunner79]

Anecdotes become more trustworthy the more mundane the claim. I read the meter on the scope and it read 8 units is trustworthy. I was visited by the ghost of Abraham Lincoln is not. It has to do with intervals of confidence. The chance that the report of the meter reading being false based on random variation is negligible. The chance of the ghost sighting being wrong by random variation is significant. Not to mention the factors which can conspire to render a witnesses statement worthless. There is less incentive to fabricate things with a mundane observation.

Interesting..... when I am inclined to fabricate something, I tend to keep it simple and easily believable (as well as low on details). Not to invite questions, or encourage people to check out my story.

And I have mistaken meter readings; far more often, then mistaking a visiting of a ghost of Lincoln... your mileage apparently varies.

[Anomalocaris]

If one person reports something odd, it's an anecdote. If 1,000 people report something odd, it's qualitative evidence.

A million persons reported the earth to be flat.

[RoadRunner79]

---

An untestable verbal account.

It's poor evidence because it's subject to all sorts of corruption, and there is no way to discover whether the events happened or not without further evidence. Even if they did, the accuracy cannot be determined. There's plenty of good explanations why several people, even large groups of people, would report the same apparently extraordinary event. And they're all more likely than "it was something magic", in my opinion.

If anyone believes that something as-yet undemonstrated to even be possible has happened based on anecdotal evidence alone, they have made a serious error. It may be a good starting point for investigation. It cannot be the investigation. You're granting these witnesses the power to correctly identify and categorise an unknown phenomenon.

Attempts to try to reduce all evidence down to the level of anecdotes is the last ditch tactic of someone desperately resorting to tu quoque fallacies. Attempts to conflate the mundane (Jack killed him) with the extraordinary (a ghost killed him) are along the same lines. Your evidence doesn't get any better by talking about it, nor by talking about other evidence. If someone has seen your evidence and is unconvinced, you need to try something else to convince them; not to try to tell them that they should be convinced.

As a last point: compare what happens when you hear an anecdote that you would like to be true, versus one you wouldn't like to be true. Do you treat both equally? Would you concede an (extraordinary) point you don't want to be true on the basis of piles of anecdotal evidence?

---

Kudos for giving a definition and reasoning..... while I enjoy all the anecdotes as evidence against anecdotes as evidence, it wasn't really what was asked for.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anecdotes as they relate to christianity:  

"I prayed to god once, bam...my asshole neighbor got syphilis."
or
"There was this guy, on the road to damascus, and he saw the ghost of a dead jew! It changed his life"

[Mudhammam]

I have seen often here the claim; as put recently that anecdotal evidence is not evidence for anything more than the mundane. 

To my understanding at least, this seems to be used in an odd and at times seemingly forced use.  I am familiar; as one would peruse from a quick google search, the use of the term anecdotal evidence in a scientific sense.  A case such as: "Bob drank 8 glasses of water a day, and his cancer went away; therefore water cures cancer".  I don't dispute such uses of the terms or the reasoning.  Also, it seems that the use in such a case, it is not making a statement about the facts of the case (That Bob drank water, or was subsequently cancer free).  The issue here is that a general conclusion, is being made from what is normally a small sample size and insufficient reason.

So I would like for anyone interested: to clarify, what they mean by anecdotal evidence, particularly in regard to use in reference to Christianity.  Also the principle or justification of any claim in regards to evidence.

I don't entirely understand the question but I suppose Christianity is comparable to any other religion in its reliance on anecdotal evidence to establish its claim to authority, namely through "he said she said... she saw a ghost that healed her grandmother's indigestion, and what's more, tickled her with a joy for which only the Christian god could be responsible," and claims of that sort.  It always relies on a person's interpretation of feelings or private experiences in terms first put forth by some obscure figures whom nobody really knows much about 2,000 years ago, and never upon any testable hypotheses or reasoning that can be demonstrated in any manner whatsoever.  I suppose calling reports of Christian miracles or mystical wanderings "anecdotal" is going too far though; for, it is generally even worse than anecdotal evidence, in that it doesn't even seem able to point us towards anything useful.

The principle or justification in regards to evidence boils down to our experience; how a claim accords with our experience, the claim's internal consistency, the nature of the observations involved and one's expectations when weigned against any other claim, in a word, the principle is more or less a method that works.  And is repeatedly affirmed by the collective efforts of individuals who span across the globe, with aims to piece together as much empirical data into a picture of reality that is as simple and coherent as possible.

[Minimalist]

"he said she said..

In jesusism "she" ain't allowed to say shit.

[bennyboy]

Anecdotes become more trustworthy the more mundane the claim.  I read the meter on the scope and it read 8 units is trustworthy.  I was visited by the ghost of Abraham Lincoln is not.  It has to do with intervals of confidence.  The chance that the report of the meter reading being false based on random variation is negligible.  The chance of the ghost sighting being wrong by random variation is significant.  Not to mention the factors which can conspire to render a witnesses statement worthless.  There is less incentive to fabricate things with a mundane observation.

Interesting..... when I am inclined to fabricate something, I tend to keep it simple and easily believable (as well as low on details).   Not to invite questions, or encourage people to check out my story.  

And I have mistaken meter readings; far more often, then mistaking a visiting of a ghost of Lincoln... your mileage apparently varies.

My view is that mundane anecdotes are more likely reliable for a different reason.  If I'm trying to convince you that the Okanagan region in British Columbia has really nice peaches, I'll probably just state so.  If you don't believe me, then I'll shrug and change the subject.

So I'd recommend this as a second measure of validity-- the more the person tries to convince you that their anecdote is real, the less likely it is to be true, since the person obviously has a personal motivation for getting you to believe.

[robvalue]

I noticed this key phrase RR:

You'd accept anecdotes which go against your positions "if you don't have reason to doubt them".

Therein lies the problem. I'm not suggesting it's just you with this problem, it is perfectly natural to be more suspicious and critical of evidence contrary to held beliefs. I do it too, I have to actively police against it. The fact that they are just anecdotes is reason to doubt them, if it's something extremely unusual. That is my position. Not reason to totally ignore them, but enough for reasonable doubt. Enough, quite possibly, to investigate further. Especially if you're going to base any sort of important decisions on the result, as I covered in my scepticism video.

But I would wager you would pretty much always find a reason to doubt such anecdotes, if they demonstrated something that would nullify your religious position. Would you ever honestly abandon your religious views based on a big pile of anecdotes? It's a serious question. Imagine there are 1,000 accounts all corroborating that God is in fact Allah. Or God turned up and destroyed himself. Or God announced he is evil. Would you ever believe any of those things just based on verbal/written accounts? My guess is that the first reason to doubt them would be, "Why are they saying this? Do they have an ulterior motive?". And then, "Are they mistaken, or projecting their previous beliefs, and fell foul of manipulation or mass hysteria?" Or, "That can't be true." And of course, "Are these even really 1,000 different people?" To make the point, if I handed you 1,000 accounts about something, all apparently written by different people, would you ever believe it? Or would you always assume I'm winding you up?

Thank you for your replies, you've been reasonable with me in this thread and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just trying to inspire thought. If your answer is that yes, you really would abandon your beliefs based on the same level of anecdotal evidence which you think supports them, then fair enough. I will take you at your word.

[RoadRunner79]

Interesting..... when I am inclined to fabricate something, I tend to keep it simple and easily believable (as well as low on details).   Not to invite questions, or encourage people to check out my story.  

And I have mistaken meter readings; far more often, then mistaking a visiting of a ghost of Lincoln... your mileage apparently varies.

My view is that mundane anecdotes are more likely reliable for a different reason.  If I'm trying to convince you that the Okanagan region in British Columbia has really nice peaches, I'll probably just state so.  If you don't believe me, then I'll shrug and change the subject.

So I'd recommend this as a second measure of validity-- the more the person tries to convince you that their anecdote is real, the less likely it is to be true, since the person obviously has a personal motivation for getting you to believe.

I don't know if I would agree with that. Would you apply the same standard of reasoning to other evidence?

By the way, I did like your previous response. I didn't say much at the time, because it is essentially the standard reasoning, and the argument found often on the inter webs, for why anecdotes are not scientific evidence.