Talk:Anecdotal evidence

From WikiSynergy

"Anecdotal evidence, if properly handled, can yield scientific evidence": this line, and everything that follows it, are [ahem], "not exactly the truth". They are made-up wishful thinking about the subject of the article. Human 07:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that is a hell of a claim to just toss out there without any kind of justification. Etaroced 07:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So you believe that it is not proven that people have near death experiences, or you believe that NDEs are not anecdotal evidence? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First the use of "scientific fact" is loaded and silly language just prima facie. As far as NDE, there is the observation that people claim to have a subjective experience when the brain is deprived of oxygen. Some of these subjective experiences have similar properties. I certainly wouldn't call it a near death experience as the same phenomenon can be created through any form of oxygen deprivation or sensory inhibition regardless of the "life or death" status of the individual.

Subjective data is used all the time in gathering data in certain kinds of science. For it to be of any value certain protocols have to be used. Large sample sizes, controlled questionnaires, and plenty of inter-rater reliability. The subjective data is only valuable from its measurement of the subjective experience. So you could use a standardized questionnaire, with a large N, and determine that a certain percentage of people report a certain kind of subjective experience when exposed to a particular environment.

We are still on fairly steady ground. Where you loss most people is when you want to make the leap to say that the actual content of the subjective experience is some how valid, or a correct description of reality. You can not use the anecdotes described in the subjective experience as evidence that the experience itself is more than just in the persons brain. Etaroced 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* I agree, but I made an article on "scientific fact" because skeptics insist sometimes on using that terminology, so defining it seemed necessary in order that the true nature of science could be explicated. Right, I agree with what you say here, although oxygen deprivation is not necessarily key. But what you describe is in fact using anecdotal evidence with the right controls to do science. Ergo, anecdotal evidence can be used in science. Claiming that it cannot is simply false, rather it must be claimed that anecdotal evidence without scientific protocol cannot reach the level of surety required of science as an institution. But as Human just said in the Science article, all empirical evidence gathering with hypotheses is science, and it is only the degree of control and the types of analysis which vary.

"For it to be of any value certain protocols have to be used." That is not quite true: science —empirical observation— can be of value even at low levels of certainty, however to be of value in institutionalized science it has to have protocols applied. And rightly so, but anecdote is often the first step in science, and saying it is of no value is incorrect, I believe. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 01:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] Please find where "I" said: "all empirical evidence gathering with hypotheses is science" (emphasis mine). If anything, I emphasized that the hypotheses must be testable to be even close to being science. I resent being misquoted to use my name to make a point on another talk page without your even including a link to what I typed. Human 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I could probably figure it out if I spent the time, but basically you need to try to think of me as someone with good intent who is not out to get you. I am out to get pseudoskepticism in the abstract, and then only when it matters. That is to say, I am out to get pseudoscientific thinking. So presumably, we are on the same side, since you would not defend skepticism by pseudoscientific thinking: I have not seen you do that. I already responded where you falsely accused me of trying to lead you somewhere. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 05:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You quoted me: "But as Human just said in the Science article..." without a link, and quoted me as saying something I didn't type. Please use your own words. I know you're not "out to get me", but please don't put words into my mouth without at the very least a link so people can see if I said it, or at least implied it. No big deal, this is mostly wiki-etiquette, since linking is so easy. Human 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try not to, I just thought that was about what you said. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 04:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It may have been close (but incomplete, I think), but a link makes it easy for anyone to see exactly what I may have written. I haven't added one yet, have? How silly of me.... Human 01:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)