Jonny Nexus
First Post
Gez said:
LOL
Why are we so quick to disregard anecdotal evidence? (general rant)
- Thread starter Storyteller01
- Start date
LOL
Thanee
First Post
Havn't read the thread I'll first guess what you mean.
anectodotal evidence ~ using one's own experiences in a single specific case as evidence.
Why would this be disregarded?
Well, first of all, it's rather foolish to completely disregard it. If there is no reason to believe, that the evidence is made up, it would be a useful piece of information to test a more general theory against.
However, it's just one single specific example within a single set of specific circumstances and thus not a very exhaustive source to base a general theory on.
And, the number one reason why I think that people might react a bit harsh towards this kind of stuff is, that often (and I mean really often) people claim that something does not work right, just because of such a single example, where in many, many cases the source of the problem is something completely different.
It's a problem with those people who just put away every such claim instead of taking a look at it first and actually think about it.
Bye
Thanee
anectodotal evidence ~ using one's own experiences in a single specific case as evidence.
Why would this be disregarded?
Well, first of all, it's rather foolish to completely disregard it. If there is no reason to believe, that the evidence is made up, it would be a useful piece of information to test a more general theory against.
However, it's just one single specific example within a single set of specific circumstances and thus not a very exhaustive source to base a general theory on.
And, the number one reason why I think that people might react a bit harsh towards this kind of stuff is, that often (and I mean really often) people claim that something does not work right, just because of such a single example, where in many, many cases the source of the problem is something completely different.
It's a problem with those people who just put away every such claim instead of taking a look at it first and actually think about it.
Bye
Thanee
Henry
Autoexreginated
Well, from my perspective, using anecdotal evidence to prove a point is like trying to prove the rule by using the exception. Once you have more than one anecdote that is similar or identical, you start moving away from "anecdote" to "theory." Once you have a BUNCH of anecdotes that are identical, you have "evidence". I'm still not saying it's true or not, but it carries more weight if more than just the speaker backs it up.
What anecdotes are BEST used for, IMO, is helping define the bounds of possibility. If I say "there's no way you can run a low-magic campaign with D&D", and you say, "Actually, I've been doing that for 10 years," then that shoots my supposition in the foot, assuming you are being truthful. I've just had the boundaries of my statement altered, where I can say, "It's very difficult to run a low-magic campaign with D&D." Tha't harder to disprove, unless a HUNDRED people come in saying, "It's not hard at all." The more evidence, the less "anecdotal" it is.
So personal experience can alter a conclusion, but it would not be logical to let it be a defining characteristic.
What anecdotes are BEST used for, IMO, is helping define the bounds of possibility. If I say "there's no way you can run a low-magic campaign with D&D", and you say, "Actually, I've been doing that for 10 years," then that shoots my supposition in the foot, assuming you are being truthful. I've just had the boundaries of my statement altered, where I can say, "It's very difficult to run a low-magic campaign with D&D." Tha't harder to disprove, unless a HUNDRED people come in saying, "It's not hard at all." The more evidence, the less "anecdotal" it is.
So personal experience can alter a conclusion, but it would not be logical to let it be a defining characteristic.
monkeyshines
First Post
Storyteller01 said:
If it's tested and replicated, then it's not antecdotal anymore.
jester47
First Post
It is interesting that some people infer that they are being called a liar when another claims a different perspective and disagrees.
This commonly happens in discussions of a religious or political nature.
The experience of two people can be vastly different. I don't think people should get bent out of shape just because the experience of one contradicts your own experience.
Aaron.
This commonly happens in discussions of a religious or political nature.
The experience of two people can be vastly different. I don't think people should get bent out of shape just because the experience of one contradicts your own experience.
Aaron.
tarchon
First Post
Hearsay is evidence that is reported second hand, like "Bob told me that he saw John in the alley that night." (It's what the witness heard someone else to say.) It's not quite the same thing as an anecdote, which is more like a (presumptively) entertaining or informative story about some event which seems remarkable to the narrator, but often less so to the listener, much like a description of the exploits of one's favorite D&D character.TheAuldGrump said:
The main problem with anecdotal evidence is that anecdotes by nature tend to be exceptional experiences that stand out in one's mind and so may not be representative of a typical experience. The problem is that they don't usually stem from a systematic gathering of information, but rather a cherry-picking of memorable cases. They're also known for a tendency to exaggeration, and the teller of the anecdote often conveniently forgets to recount other anecdotes which are less favorable to his position.
Storyteller01
First Post
Piratecat said:
Sorry 'bout that. Thought i had it right the first time.
Similar Threads
