Are Anecdotes PROOF of anything?

[WordWolf]

When it comes to discussions of events-what CAN happen, what DID happen, and so on- it is common to hear ANECDOTES. Those are stories that people claim occurred a certain way. Often, someone will act as if a claim of an event, an anecdote is, in and of itself, proof of something.

It is not.

Why not?  Others have explained it, some in layman's terms.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

"Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is usually used in contrast to scientific evidence, especially evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method."

"In all forms of anecdotal evidence, testing its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence."

"In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:

• "information that is not based on facts or careful study" ^[1]
• "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts" ^[2]
• "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers" ^[3]
• "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" ^[4]
• "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically""

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation. "

http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

"

Testimonials and vivid anecdotes are one of the most popular and convincing forms of evidence presented for beliefs in the supernatural, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, testimonials and anecdotes in such matters are of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. Sincere and vivid accounts of one’s encounter with an angel or the Virgin Mary, an alien, a ghost, a Bigfoot, a child claiming to have lived before, purple auras around dying patients, a miraculous dowser, a levitating guru, or a psychic surgeon are of little value in establishing the reasonableness of believing in such matters.

Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy.

Thus, stories of personal experience with paranormal or supernatural events have little scientific value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claim made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was interpreted correctly. If others can experience the same thing, then it is possible to make a test of the testimonial and determine whether the claim based on it is worthy of belief. As parapsychologist Charles Tart once said after reporting an anecdote of a possibly paranormal event: “Let’s take this into the laboratory, where we can know exactly what conditions were. We don’t have to hear a story told years later and hope that it was accurate.” Dean Radin also noted that anecdotes aren't good proof of the paranormal because memory “is much more fallible than most people think” and eyewitness testimony “is easily distorted”(Radin 1997: 32).

Testimonials regarding paranormal experiences are of little use to science because selective thinking and self-deception must be controlled for in scientific observations. Most psychics and dowsers, for example, do not even realize that they need to do controlled tests of their powers to rule out the possibility that they are deceiving themselves. They are satisfied that their experiences provide them with enough positive feedback to justify the belief in their paranormal abilities. Controlled tests of psychics and dowsers would prove once and for all that they are not being selective in their evidence gathering. It is common for such people to remember their apparent successes and ignore or underplay their failures. Controlled tests can also determine whether other factors such as cheating might be involved.

If such testimonials are scientifically worthless, why are they so popular and why are they so convincing? There are several reasons. Testimonials are often vivid and detailed, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any reason to deceive us. They are often made by people with some semblance of authority, such as those who hold a Ph.D. in psychology or physics. To some extent, testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. Often, one anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction. One’s testimonial is given soon after the experience while one’s mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome. The experience and the testimonial it elicits are given more significance than they deserve."

 

 

===============================

In short, accounts of what some friend-of-a-friend saw or experienced are unreliable and untestable. They are generally how claims of Bigfoot and other mythical monsters still perpetuate. However, with no ability to follow up with the original person and scrutinize the specifics, there is no evidence and so no conclusion can be drawn from them.   If one wants to make a claim of something fantastical, the standard of proving it is not "because I say so" or "because I believe it", but is a LOT more stringent.  If one happens where skeptics observe, if it is repeated in a lab and it is proven not to be some hoax, if a variety of people with a variety of opinions are party to the same event and all immediately agree on exactly what happened (which is rare no matter what event) and they agree with what the videocamera showed when it was rolling at the time-  those are something else entirely. Even the skeptic has to sit up and take notice when stringent requirements are met.  When none are met, it's no surprise if nobody believes someone just because they say something happened. They may be lying, or simply honestly mistaken. They may have wanted to see something-which affected how they interpreted what they saw.  And so on.

 

 

[Rocky]

37 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

If such testimonials are scientifically worthless, why are they so popular and why are they so convincing? There are several reasons. Testimonials are often vivid and detailed, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any [conscious] reason to deceive us. They are often made by people with some semblance of authority, such as those who hold a Ph.D. in psychology or physics. To some extent, testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. Often, one anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction. One’s testimonial is given soon after the experience while one’s mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome. The experience and the testimonial it elicits are given more significance than they deserve."

 

 

===============================

In short, accounts of what some friend-of-a-friend saw or experienced are unreliable and untestable. They are generally how claims of Bigfoot and other mythical monsters still perpetuate. However, with no ability to follow up with the original person and scrutinize the specifics, there is no evidence and so no conclusion can be drawn from them.   If one wants to make a claim of something fantastical, the standard of proving it is not "because I say so" or "because I believe it", but is a LOT more stringent.  If one happens where skeptics observe, if it is repeated in a lab and it is proven not to be some hoax, if a variety of people with a variety of opinions are party to the same event and all immediately agree on exactly what happened (which is rare no matter what event) and they agree with what the videocamera showed when it was rolling at the time-  those are something else entirely. Even the skeptic has to sit up and take notice when stringent requirements are met.  When none are met, it's no surprise if nobody believes someone just because they say something happened. They may be lying, or simply honestly mistaken. They may have wanted to see something-which affected how they interpreted what they saw.  And so on.

 

 

Intriguing insight. I'd go so far as to say that FOR THE MOST PART testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. And the phenomenon is not limited to an "anecdotal vs scientific" dichotomy. It's a human and very social phenomenon that relates to beliefs in any area of human thought, action or interaction. Wierwille used the title "Doctor" because he wanted to appear to be believable. Most of us who come to GSC fell for it (I did).

You used the words "stories," "accounts," and "testimonials" several times. Those words are more or less interchangeable. You also used "evidence."

noun

1.

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2.

something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3.

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

*****

My point simply is that while I get the distinction you're trying to make about scientific inquiry, the topic is much more complex than what you set forth.

Scientific evidence may need to be objective, but evidence (and hence "proof" of something or other) often actually is subjective.

What I don't get is why you felt compelled to make that point. Your post doesn't seem to indicate your purpose.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Rocky
clarity

[Rocky]

Please, if I'm completely missing your overall point (and therefore the purpose) of your OP for this thread, help me understand.

My understanding of the concepts of proof and evidence is that they relate to getting a listener or reader to understand and perhaps believe what you are trying to communicate.

Are you suggesting that people who participate in discussions should completely disregard anything that relies solely on anecdotes to prove a point? If you are, may I suggest you're peeing into the wind. That would be because changing human nature based on a logical argument is all but impossible.

OTOH,

One of the foremost scientists (social psychologist) who has conducted actual academic inquiry on the subject of Influence is Robert Cialdini, author of the seminal book, "Influence," which was first published more than 30 years ago.

Dr. Cialdini gave an interview to the NYTimes that was published just last week on YouTube that might shed a bit of light on the subject.
 

 

[WordWolf]

I probably am, but I thought this was a point that should at least be raised. It's come up on more than one thread.  Someone considered "a friend-of-a-friend told me about this time" as "evidence" and was shocked that they're the only one who thought that.  In case lots of people are having that problem (or even 1 lurker), I thought it was important to at least make an effort to set the record straight.    Then again, there's an on-off discussion somewhere completely unrelated to the GSC about whether actual logic or evidence ever convinces people of anything, or if we should focus on style rather than substance.  (It's partly political so it's off-topic here completely.)

[Raf]

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I don't see a clear distinction drawn between "evidence" and "proof."

Anecdotes ARE evidence by definition, but not all evidence is reliable. Joseph Smith said he translated the golden plates. Other people close to him swore they watched him do it, sort of. Those are anecdotes. That they're also horse hit is obvious to even the most gullible of people. But ask a Mormon. A smart one. One who has shown genuine ability in the real world requiring brains. Like Mitt Romney. He buys the evidence. And can anyone of us prove it didn't happen? You were there? Huh? Huh?

More later. 

[T-Bone]

7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

I probably am, but I thought this was a point that should at least be raised. It's come up on more than one thread.  Someone considered "a friend-of-a-friend told me about this time" as "evidence" and was shocked that they're the only one who thought that.  In case lots of people are having that problem (or even 1 lurker), I thought it was important to at least make an effort to set the record straight.    Then again, there's an on-off discussion somewhere completely unrelated to the GSC about whether actual logic or evidence ever convinces people of anything, or if we should focus on style rather than substance.  (It's partly political so it's off-topic here completely.)

I think there are situations where anecdotal evidence may be just as validating as facts or careful study - when it resonates with another person or persons. Take Grease Spot for example. When I first came here - I had already left TWI over differences of doctrine and practice – as well as the various ways my family and I were exploited. Reading about other folks’ experiences – many accounts being similar to my own – resonated with me on several levels…intellectually, emotionally, socially, etc. The validation for me is hey I’m not the only one who felt weird about this or that…I’m not the only one who thought something was seriously wrong.

Maybe logic and evidence are not as big a deal in About the Way forum as they are in the doctrinal forum – but maybe that’s because some folks are usually looking for something to relate to or that resonates with them in About the Way forum…maybe not looking to debate or convince somebody of something but instead they are looking for validation (or support) for what they already feel is true.  

Edited March 16, 2017 by T-Bone
clarity and impact

[Bolshevik]

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein  (source, google it)

IMO, anecdotes seem fine for leading one to ask more questions.  Understanding of anything should be under constant change, anyway.  If a position is fixed, what discussion can there be.

 

[WordWolf]

Obviously, there's a difference between what an anecdote is supposed to illustrate.

If it's an eyewitness account ("then I saw him rip her shirt off")  that can make a huge difference, but if it's a second-hand account, it might not be ("He said he saw the other guy rip her shirt off.")  That's why courts of law have "cross-examination", which has been referred to as one of the most vital tools the court has to try to determine what the truth is in a case presented before it.  

There's also a significant difference in what we'd accept off a single eyewitness account, even if the person saw something himself.  A person claiming to see someone approach a building and throw a burning molotov cocktail at a building an instant before a fire began is one thing.  A person claiming to see another walk on water is something else entirely. There's few ways (or reasons) to fake the former, there's lots of ways to fake the latter.  Then again, it's good to examine all accounts. I once stood with a bunch of smokers, and was seen to take out a lighter and a cigarette, light the cigarette, and take a puff out of it. (Close friends would have been VERY suspicious, since I avoid cigarette smoke.)  I then held up the "lighter" and "cigarette", showing they were neither, and I had lit a Binaca spray with a flashlight and pretended to smoke it.  I did it for amusement and because I actually had the right items at the right time to fake it.  However, everyone around saw what they expected to see-despite seeing me light an unusually fat cigarette and blow invisible smoke in the air.

 

[Rocky]

2 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Obviously, there's a difference between what an anecdote is supposed to illustrate.

If it's an eyewitness account ("then I saw him rip her shirt off")  that can make a huge difference, but if it's a second-hand account, it might not be ("He said he saw the other guy rip her shirt off.")  That's why courts of law have "cross-examination", which has been referred to as one of the most vital tools the court has to try to determine what the truth is in a case presented before it.  

There's also a significant difference in what we'd accept off a single eyewitness account, even if the person saw something himself.  A person claiming to see someone approach a building and throw a burning molotov cocktail at a building an instant before a fire began is one thing.  A person claiming to see another walk on water is something else entirely. There's few ways (or reasons) to fake the former, there's lots of ways to fake the latter.  Then again, it's good to examine all accounts. I once stood with a bunch of smokers, and was seen to take out a lighter and a cigarette, light the cigarette, and take a puff out of it. (Close friends would have been VERY suspicious, since I avoid cigarette smoke.)  I then held up the "lighter" and "cigarette", showing they were neither, and I had lit a Binaca spray with a flashlight and pretended to smoke it.  I did it for amusement and because I actually had the right items at the right time to fake it.  However, everyone around saw what they expected to see-despite seeing me light an unusually fat cigarette and blow invisible smoke in the air.

 

Great illustration. I would suggest that this discussion goes along well with a thread where Sherlock Holmes was brought up (by me) to expand on related issues with critical analysis (thinking).

Edited March 17, 2017 by Rocky
link was in the wrong place

[Bolshevik]

Why Anecdotes Trump Data