In Defense of Anecdotal Evidence

At 12:09 AM 12/12/1996, E. Allen Smith wrote:
>From:   IN%"mjmiski@execpc.com"  "Matthew J. Miszewski" 11-DEC-1996 19:43:51.88
>>If I wanted to I could repeatedly issue heart-wrenching stories of
>>poverty in America (similar, of course, to politicians using "real
>>world examples" in speeches).  You seem to assume that this would be
>>"wrong".
>
>        As did Ronald Reagan in talking about "welfare queens"... as
>could I in discussing how my grandparents got out of poverty and have
>two children with MDs and one with a PhD. Statistics are preferable
>to anecdotal evidence for just this reason; I've seen that over and
>over again in science. Anecdotes are for lawyers talking to juries
>and demagogic politicians talking to the masses.

Statistics are a useful tool, but they have their problems.  Their
accuracy is often in doubt.  Most scientific data comes with an error
analysis so you can tell what the figure means.  For some reason
statisticians never do this so we cannot tell whether their numbers
are accurate to within 0.1%, 1.0%, 10%, or even worse.

There are many other problems.  For instance, users of statistics
assume they have a random sample, even in cases where that is far from
clear.

Social statistics are a black art.  There was a study awhile back
which claimed gun ownership reduced violent crime.  That is a
surprising result.  It was apparently obtained by subtracting out all
the other factors that could explain the differences in the areas
studied.  This process must involve some real stretches statistically.
I can't imagine how cultural differences are determined and
subtracted - I assume it is a subjective process.

Another problem with statistics is that they are difficult to verify.
We may wish to verify the information in cases of deception -
sometimes well meaning - but also for cases of statistical
incompetence.  It is also hard to explore the details of the study if
the authors are unavailable.

The advantage of first hand experience is that it is primary evidence.
You know it's true because you were there and saw it.

The advantage of anecdotal evidence (in the sense we have been using
it) is that the person who is telling you the anecdote was there and
saw it.  You can cross-examine them and get a full understanding of
the evidence provided.

Specific examples, that is anecdotal evidence, also provide a nice
framework for discussing our abstract beliefs about what is morally
right or wrong, or what various parties should be expected to do or
say in particular situations.  Specific examples also make it possible
for the participants in the conversation to deepen their own
understanding of their experiences.  You might have seen something and
interpreted it in a particular way.  Somebody else might be able to
show you how you misinterpreted what you saw.

Red Rackham

nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) writes:
> Social statistics are a black art.  There was a study awhile back
> which claimed gun ownership reduced violent crime.  That is a
> surprising result. ..

What's surprising about it??

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
> Statistics are a useful tool, but they have their problems.  Their
> accuracy is often in doubt.  Most scientific data comes with an error
> analysis so you can tell what the figure means.  For some reason
> statisticians never do this so we cannot tell whether their numbers
> are accurate to within 0.1%, 1.0%, 10%, or even worse.
> 
> There are many other problems.  For instance, users of statistics
> assume they have a random sample, even in cases where that is far from
> clear.

Wrong statistics is usually obtained by idiots who do not know
what statistics is about. 

Social scientists and feminist studies are a frequent example of such
unfortunate situation.

	- Igor.