I just did a little search on "anecdotal evidence" and was surprised to read the first page entries were all negative, warning against making decisions based upon it. Now I don't offer only anecdotal evidence in discussions because of course it is not always helpful. Sometimes when I hear that the best facts have already been shared and I think individual personal experience has not been represented, I do share it. That is only common sense. But I almost sense the search was geared to dismiss one from considering...adverse reaction testimonies? But in the absence of proper TESTING these personal reports are still part of the "testing" and should not be dismissed as merely "anecdotal evidence".
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Anecdotal evidence is very useful in science. It is exactly anecdotal evidence that drives every single investigation in science. No one in science ignores anecdotal evidence. They take it, and create an experiment to test whether or not the anecdotal evidence is supported by the experiment, and if so, by how much (statistical analysis).
Even when if the experiment shows "statistical significance" that still doesn't prove anything, but some people (mostly non-scientists, but some scientists as well) believe it does. This is a failing of the way we process information and create actionable beliefs, not a failing of science itself.
The main point is, anecdotal evidence is essential, statistical evidence (the result of every experiment) is essential, both are admissible, neither is "proof" of truth.