Anecdotal Evidence

[Pat Mustard]

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.

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.

[robvalue]

I'll be honest, what it seems like I'm seeing here is an attempt to bend science and standards of evidence so that religious beliefs become accepted as credible. This is what I see the danger as. Religious beliefs are not rational (in my opinion) so if the person tries to make themselves "consistent", they end up leaking further irrationality into their thinking. I don't know why this would be required. No one is stopping anyone believing anything they want. Believe Lord of the Rings really happened if you want. I won't stop you.

Again, I don't give a monkeys. Jesus did this that and the other, I don't care. He could turn up right now and I'd still not become a Christian. I'm struggling to see how this topic is anything but this, because of the lack of real world examples.

This is just my take on it. I've tried hard to see how this could be anything else. Otherwise it's just a general attempt to smear science; I don't know why. Yes, so and so someone reported could have happened. So what? If anyone can see anything more going on here, please point it out to me. I've tried not to be cynical. We appear to be descending into semantics rather than expanding into reality.

At 2:00 I talk a bit about what science is. I'm not claiming to be an authority. Just giving my take on things.

https://youtu.be/qvPeaSezHsE

[Pat Mustard]

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

No, the reports from thousands saying they saw the sun dance at Fatima is no more believable than the reports from seven that they saw a statue of Mary dance at Knock.

Reports such as this only become believable once there is independent evidence that they are.

[The Grand Nudger]

For the faithful, such reports become believable before they're reported in the first place. That's the self reenforcing nature of religious belief that drives "credible" anecdote selection. Eve a believer can look at something a thousand people claim to have seen - say some "other" gods minions doing this that or the other...and decide that it isn;t credible. Let one person claim something that can be even remotely -twisted- to conform to ones beliefs, and it;s super trustworthy. It's -evidence-.

[bennyboy]

I'm interested to know though what the actual issue is here. Is there some practical problem you're trying to address? Why is it important to you to raise the profile of anecdotes?

The issue is in asking for evidence, and then denying any evidence a priori based on the content.  I think that this is dishonest.  Also, as I have mentioned, this use of the term anecdote is unusual and seems almost forced.  Now you can do a search, and find websites which will state anecdotes are not evidence.  This is in the context of scientific research.  And if you look at the examples in these instances, what they are addressing when they say it  is not evidence, it is not denying that the events are being being conveyed accurately.  It is addressing issues; such as cherry picking data, hasty generalization, and post hoc ergo hoc, in coming to a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence.  And I think that this is the source of this awkward use of the term found here.

You assess that I am trying to raise the profile of anecdotes.  I would suggest that you do some study in the use of testimony in historical and legal contexts.   In your unusual definition of anecdote, you included that it is un-testable.  I disagree.  It is un-repeatable; but, unless you are wanting to limit what is knowable, to only what is repeatable (which I think that most epidemiologist and philosophers would take issue's with) then I don't think the argument is very well thought out.  I do think that seeing something occur is good evidence, that it is possible, even if those with higher learning, cannot reproduce or explain it. Likewise, we can share what we know with others, and what is knowable, is not limited to our own personal experience.  I would agree, that people can make mistakes, and if I had seen something unusual, I would be the first, to ask someone else (if available) if they saw the same thing.  We do need to test a witness, and even test ourselves.   This applies to our philosophies, not just to anecdotes.

Is there any other points concerning you except for religous texts? How does this impact real life?

I'm not discussing this as something specific concerning only religious texts, but as a general principle.  It has to do with correct reasoning.   Now if I was endorsing the use of a logical fallacy as an argument, would that impact real life?  Maybe, maybe not.   People got a long just fine, before these things where considered.  People got a long for many years, before modern science as well.   But, I think that if you are going to have a thoughtful discussion using this principle, then we are open to examine that philosophy.  I would ask again, what are you basing this view on.   So far, all I remember seeing, is that people can make mistakes, and people can lie.   I agree, however I don't think that a modernist view (where everything has to be certain) or a post-modern view (where nothing can be known) is very profitable.

Here's the thing.  You're conflating facts with interpretations.  I will accept the Bible's assertions that so-and-so said something, or even SAW (or thought he saw) something.  I will even accept individual Christians' testimony about the things they can be gnostic about-- their feelings, the events of their lives, etc.  But I will not accept their interpretation of what CAUSED their experiences (God, miracles, etc.) unless they have demonstrated those causes to be real.  And they haven't.


More irrational assertions:

-Aunt Edna's kidney stones suddenly dissipated (fact) after everyone prayed for her (fact), so it's probably a work of God (illogical assertion).

-I prayed in church (fact), and I felt the hairs go up on my neck (fact), my heart started pounding really fast (fact), and I felt God in the room (kind of a fact), so God is real and was in the room (illogical assertion)

-I was a stone-cold killer (an exaggerated fact), and a hard-core gangster (possible fact), then I accepted Jesus as my personal savior (fact), and my life improved greatly (fact).  Therefore, God is real, thank you Jebus (illogical assertion)


The problem isn't so much with testimony.  It's with the unqualified assertions that piggyback on it.  No Christian says, "My heartrate is pounding, but I feel a strange sense of peace.  Could be endorphins and the trigger of neurotransmitters in response to ritualistic behaviors!"  Every Christian says something like, "I can feeeeeeel the Looooord in the room!  Praise God, who is so obviously reeeeaaaal!" A few million of these illogical assertions, and Christians think they're establishing a probability by weight of evidence. Actually, they're only demonstrating that Christians interpret their feelings through Christ-colored glasses-- which is neither surprising nor useful in establishing truth.

It is true that we often listen to friends' testimony or anecdotes. However, while I will easily believe my friend's assertions that his house once had 10 wasp nests, I will probably not believe his assertions that it's because the deck was painted blue, or there are a lot of pine trees in the area, or God was mad because his brother was gay. That's because I know my friend doesn't know shit about wasps.

And I know that most people don't know shit about how the brain works, and how their experiences are generated in the brain.

[RoadRunner79]

Tazzycorn

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.

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.

[bennyboy]

RR i think your last post is broken. . . .missing a quote tag maybe?

The thing about the science you're talking about is that people DO lie or make mistakes. That's why they have to very carefully detail their experimental methods and so on-- because if people just accept the scientists' conclusions, and do not carefully examine the facts, you might as well give the guy a black gown and a stick of incense.

And in the case of bad science getting accepted, this is sometimes the case, especially if the "scientist" goes to the media rather than to a peer-reviewed journal. For example-- is MSG harmful? If you think yes, you are a victim of bad science-- you've heard from many sources a certain conclusion, but don't know that it came from a weak, and now debunked, study

[RoadRunner79]

I'll be honest, what it seems like I'm seeing here is an attempt to bend science and standards of evidence so that religious beliefs become accepted as credible. This is what I see the danger as. Religious beliefs are not rational (in my opinion) so if the person tries to make themselves "consistent", they end up leaking further irrationality into their thinking. I don't know why this would be required. No one is stopping anyone believing anything they want. Believe Lord of the Rings really happened if you want. I won't stop you.

I'm not trying to bend science or the standards of evidence. Testimony as evidence has been regarded for some time, in legal and historical investigation. And I think that you are more focused on the consequences in regards to religion in this discussion than I am. Now as far as I can gather, the only rational argument you have made is that testimony can be unreliable. This included mistakes and lies. If you wish to continue in the discussion, I think that it would be good, to expand further on this, and why testimony should not be considered evidence (as it is now). It may be news to you, but anything involving people, can have mistakes or be lied about. In the areas mentioned above (legal and historical) there are methods to detect these as well.

This is just my take on it. I've tried hard to see how this could be anything else. Otherwise it's just a general attempt to smear science; I don't know why. Yes, so and so someone reported could have happened. So what? If anyone can see anything more going on here, please point it out to me. I've tried not to be cynical. We appear to be descending into semantics rather than expanding into reality.

I'm not trying to smear or diminish science, however a principle being advocated can be applied to this area of knowledge, then it is rational to do so.

[RoadRunner79]

The issue is in asking for evidence, and then denying any evidence a priori based on the content.  I think that this is dishonest.  Also, as I have mentioned, this use of the term anecdote is unusual and seems almost forced.  Now you can do a search, and find websites which will state anecdotes are not evidence.  This is in the context of scientific research.  And if you look at the examples in these instances, what they are addressing when they say it  is not evidence, it is not denying that the events are being being conveyed accurately.  It is addressing issues; such as cherry picking data, hasty generalization, and post hoc ergo hoc, in coming to a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence.  And I think that this is the source of this awkward use of the term found here.

You assess that I am trying to raise the profile of anecdotes.  I would suggest that you do some study in the use of testimony in historical and legal contexts.   In your unusual definition of anecdote, you included that it is un-testable.  I disagree.  It is un-repeatable; but, unless you are wanting to limit what is knowable, to only what is repeatable (which I think that most epidemiologist and philosophers would take issue's with) then I don't think the argument is very well thought out.  I do think that seeing something occur is good evidence, that it is possible, even if those with higher learning, cannot reproduce or explain it. Likewise, we can share what we know with others, and what is knowable, is not limited to our own personal experience.  I would agree, that people can make mistakes, and if I had seen something unusual, I would be the first, to ask someone else (if available) if they saw the same thing.  We do need to test a witness, and even test ourselves.   This applies to our philosophies, not just to anecdotes.

I'm not discussing this as something specific concerning only religious texts, but as a general principle.  It has to do with correct reasoning.   Now if I was endorsing the use of a logical fallacy as an argument, would that impact real life?  Maybe, maybe not.   People got a long just fine, before these things where considered.  People got a long for many years, before modern science as well.   But, I think that if you are going to have a thoughtful discussion using this principle, then we are open to examine that philosophy.  I would ask again, what are you basing this view on.   So far, all I remember seeing, is that people can make mistakes, and people can lie.   I agree, however I don't think that a modernist view (where everything has to be certain) or a post-modern view (where nothing can be known) is very profitable.

Here's the thing.  You're conflating facts with interpretations.  I will accept the Bible's assertions that so-and-so said something, or even SAW (or thought he saw) something.  I will even accept individual Christians' testimony about the things they can be gnostic about-- their feelings, the events of their lives, etc.  But I will not accept their interpretation of what CAUSED their experiences (God, miracles, etc.) unless they have demonstrated those causes to be real.  And they haven't.


More irrational assertions:

-Aunt Edna's kidney stones suddenly dissipated (fact) after everyone prayed for her (fact), so it's probably a work of God (illogical assertion).

-I prayed in church (fact), and I felt the hairs go up on my neck (fact), my heart started pounding really fast (fact), and I felt God in the room (kind of a fact), so God is real and was in the room (illogical assertion)

-I was a stone-cold killer (an exaggerated fact), and a hard-core gangster (possible fact), then I accepted Jesus as my personal savior (fact), and my life improved greatly (fact).  Therefore, God is real, thank you Jebus (illogical assertion)


The problem isn't so much with testimony.  It's with the unqualified assertions that piggyback on it.  No Christian says, "My heartrate is pounding, but I feel a strange sense of peace.  Could be endorphins and the trigger of neurotransmitters in response to ritualistic behaviors!"  Every Christian says something like, "I can feeeeeeel the Looooord in the room!  Praise God, who is so obviously reeeeaaaal!"  A few million of these illogical assertions, and Christians think they're establishing a probability by weight of evidence.  Actually, they're only demonstrating that Christians interpret their feelings through Christ-colored glasses-- which is neither surprising nor useful in establishing truth.

It is true that we often listen to friends' testimony or anecdotes.  However, while I will easily believe my friend's assertions that his house once had 10 wasp nests, I will probably not believe his assertions that it's because the deck was painted blue, or there are a lot of pine trees in the area, or God was mad because his brother was gay.  That's because I know my friend doesn't know shit about wasps.

And I know that most people don't know shit about how the brain works, and how their experiences are generated in the brain.

Thanks for a rational and well laid out case. It's refreshing, and fills me with hope

I mostly agree, but that is not the reason for the comment above.

[GrandizerII]

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

Well, it would be evidence for some interesting phenomenological phenomenon.