Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Anecdotes and Anecdotal Evidence.

1,048 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Liquid Gardens
27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is logical fallacy to conclude,  without evidences, that ALL such stories are untrue, just as it would be to conclude they are all true.

Logically then, in relation to these discussions, it's almost like the stories alone aren't that much help or use at all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Logically then, in relation to these discussions, it's almost like the stories alone aren't that much help or use at all.

I don't get that.

I love hearing other people's stories (far too few of them on UM these days ) both to compare them to my own and also to analyse the context and personality of the story and story teller 

if i had never told my true stories on UM no one would have known them. Now the y have a choice to disbelieve but at least they know there IS an alternative type of life experience to their own, and  thatnot everyone lives a materialist based lifestyle 

Human stories or narratives are what make us human and are a critical part of our social being.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

The logical, default position, should be to disbelieve until E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E is presented.

Why? That is not logical. You are as likely to be wrong actively disbelieving, as you are believing, if there is no evidence.

EG do you  dis believe there is life on mars? 

The logical default position should be to suspend BOTH belief and disbelief  until evidences become available, but often that is not enough for people.  Their minds demand an answer  to questions, and evidences NEVER become available. So they chose to believe there is life on mars or that there is not.

And that is a simple non- critical question unlike, "Do you  disbelieve that gods exist ?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

An anecdote is a recital of an event that may or may not be true or truthful.

Period. Full stop,

"While at the beach last summer, a little boy came up to me to show me the mermaid he had caught. Looking at the wee little baby mermaid, we both decided that she needed to be with her Momma, so I swam out beyond the breakers with the poor creature and released her. Soon, both baby and Momma mermaid were seen happily swimming away. This event was witnessed by several hundred people on shore."

 

Factual data? Or made-up story? You have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly.

True (if indeed it was witnessed by several hundred people) Probably a television advertising gimmick for some new teenage series,  but probably true Any way there would be hundreds of Instagrams Facebook posts and other evidences available within minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Question:

How many anecdotes, or anecdotal stories equals one datum?

Ok. 

We are having a meeting here about what all these definitions mean. We are having an issue here with a few words, and how they pertain to scientific research and scientific evidence which what this thread is about.

Scientific evidence must be repeatable, testable and objective. 

Data are used to describe observations and depending on the accuracy required can be presented as evidence. 

For example we have @Mr Walker counting car's. The numerical representations of these counts are of course data. But I would not consider this data evidence unless the count was repeated a second time under similar conditions, or the initial count had multiple people counting, or it was recorded via a phone or video recorder. So MrWalkers count has the potential to be evidence but it's not on it's own, simply because it's not objective.

Now to swing back on topic and to respond to your question. Scientifically speaking it's all data, but is it evidence? In my opinion no.

For example we can ask a question, one thrown out here alot. Do you believe in God? One hundred people respond all saying yes, wow. These are all data, but it is not evidence of God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

The logical, default position, should be to disbelieve until E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E is presented.

No, it should be to not hold any view either way. 

Obviously it depends on the claim, but no conclusion should be reached prior to reviewing evidence. 

But extraordinary claims, require evidence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
31 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Ok. 

We are having a meeting here about what all these definitions mean. We are having an issue here with a few words, and how they pertain to scientific research and scientific evidence which what this thread is about.

Scientific evidence must be repeatable, testable and objective. 

Data are used to describe observations and depending on the accuracy required can be presented as evidence. 

For example we have @Mr Walker counting car's. The numerical representations of these counts are of course data. But I would not consider this data evidence unless the count was repeated a second time under similar conditions, or the initial count had multiple people counting, or it was recorded via a phone or video recorder. So MrWalkers count has the potential to be evidence but it's not on it's own, simply because it's not objective.

Now to swing back on topic and to respond to your question. Scientifically speaking it's all data, but is it evidence? In my opinion no.

For example we can ask a question, one thrown out here alot. Do you believe in God? One hundred people respond all saying yes, wow. These are all data, but it is not evidence of God. 

quoted instead of edited (again) 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
30 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Ok. 

We are having a meeting here about what all these definitions mean. We are having an issue here with a few words, and how they pertain to scientific research and scientific evidence which what this thread is about.

Scientific evidence must be repeatable, testable and objective. 

Data are used to describe observations and depending on the accuracy required can be presented as evidence. 

For example we have @Mr Walker counting car's. The numerical representations of these counts are of course data. But I would not consider this data evidence unless the count was repeated a second time under similar conditions, or the initial count had multiple people counting, or it was recorded via a phone or video recorder. So MrWalkers count has the potential to be evidence but it's not on it's own, simply because it's not objective.

Now to swing back on topic and to respond to your question. Scientifically speaking it's all data, but is it evidence? In my opinion no.

For example we can ask a question, one thrown out here alot. Do you believe in God? One hundred people respond all saying yes, wow. These are all data, but it is not evidence of God. 

I agree with all this, except the definition of evidence. Those data counts were evidence of traffic flows, and were used to plan roads, parking, and even commercial development over the next decade 

Evidence is not always correct.  Whether it is  used or not depends on the faith people have in it's source, eg i would not trust a whale count done by Japanese whalers or Sea Shepherd, but i might trust one done by the CSIRO. 

So; the counts were repeated over an extended period of time, but there were no phones back in those days,  (mid 1960s) and most people didn't have access to a movie camera. I could have had a second counter, but this would just have meant that his/her data also had to be accepted in faith, or rejected,  just like my own.  (I did on occasion use my little brother to help, when traffic flows were at a peak, just to make sure i didn't miss anything )  

The data was totally objective ie i used a hand drawn table and ticked EVERY vehicle and pedestrian passing by in the allocated time slot  This was a direct, objective, measurement of traffic flow in that time period.

Same with counting all the car parks, and vehicles in car parks, within a specified time. The results were objective statistical data.

Any inferences drawn from the data were,of course, subjective,  but that was necessary for using the data.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I agree with all this, except the definition of evidence. Those data counts were evidence of traffic flows, and were used to plan roads, parking, and even commercial development over the next decade 

Evidence is not always correct.  Whether it is  used or not depends on the faith people have in it's source,

So; the counts were repeated over an extended period of time, but there were no phones back in those days  (mid 1960s) and most people didn't have access to a movie camera. I could have had a second counter, but this would just have meant that his/her data also had to be accepted in faith, or rejected,  just like my own. 

The data was totally objective ie i used a hand drawn table and ticked EVERY vehicle and pedestrian passing by in the allocated time slot  This was a direct, objective, measurement of traffic flow in that time period.

Same with counting all the car parks, and vehicles in car parks, within a specified time. The results were objective statistical data.

Any inferences drawn from the data were,of course, subjective,  but that was necessary for using the data.    

It wasn't objective it's not evidence, it's that simple. It's certainly not scientific evidence! All you have is data, not evidence and data is not evidence. 

Your method of recording doesn't make it objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
6 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Again, how many anecdotes equals one datum?

By your reasoning, we must assume that all tales of alien abduction are true; that all tales of bigfoot encounters are true; that all tales tales told of godly visitations are true, merely because there are many tales told of such.

Does one unsubstantiated tale equal data?

Does ten such tales?

A hundred?

A Thousand?

There are countless tales told of the 'little people' in Ireland. Does the number of stories mean that there is truth to these tall tales?

 

The issue I see with "data" and "evidence" is that your assumption is that people are going to only believe what "Science", as a nebulous, checked fact, faceless entity, says to believe. But, humans believe what they, themselves, think is real. 

A Christian might ask himself... "Is God Real?" and so then tests the question. He prays to God for some windfall, or other. Which happens. Whether this happens due to blind luck, or actual divine intervention, is irrelevant. That person has a data point now. So they say,"I'm going to test this data point." And they pray for more windfalls, or whatever. And those things also happen. Now... This person has several data points and to HIM it is now a Fact that God is real. After all he tested Him four, or five, times and all had a positive result.

That is without the person rationalizing any differences between what they prayed for and what actually happened. Factor that in, and you have millions... billions... of people believing in God/Religion.

So, you are correct in that for Science to consider something a fact, it must be repeatable. But not everyone is a follower of Science.

If a person in Ireland has heard 1000 "little people" stories, AND witnessed something themselves... Is it any wonder that they would believe it was true? That they would INSIST that it is true?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

It wasn't objective it's not evidence, it's that simple. It's certainly not scientific evidence! All you have is data, not evidence and data is not evidence. 

Your method of recording doesn't make it objective.

I am not sure that is even true with science. if it were then there would BE no objective truths   It certainly is not true in general terms.

Objective is simply pertaining to an object Ie it has qualities which can be measured  Subjective is pertaining to the subject. So, ANY data is objective.  ANY opinion about that data is subjective  That data could be objectively assessed and measured and checked (a t least approx by re-doing similar surveys a t similar times)

 That checking is not needed to make it both objective and evidence. Merely the fact that it CAN be objectively checked makes it objective, and thus evidence.  

The method of recording has no effect on the objectivity of the data. Indeed i was using sampling methods given to me   by  experts in sampling and  recording, as a requirement of my task .

It was exactly how ALL such data was gathered at that time.  I went onto do a further 3 years of more advanced sampling and surveying at uni,  and to pass a separate university subject on statistical sampling and use, which was a compulsory part of my studies,   and the methods remained identical

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't get that.

I didn't say that no one can derive entertainment value or something from stories.  That's why I included 'with relation to these discussions', which are supposed to be about spirituality vs skepticism, not 'let's hear your stories you happen to find interesting', for which there are numerous other message boards here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I didn't say that no one can derive entertainment value or something from stories.  That's why I included 'with relation to these discussions', which are supposed to be about spirituality vs skepticism, not 'let's hear your stories you happen to find interesting', for which there are numerous other message boards here.

Generally my stories are about my experiences with spirituality (or the type of physical manifestations which create a sense of spiritual belief in humans)   Or they respond to other people's points of view  As ive said many times, the only known and accurate reference point i can use in ANY discussion is the experiences of my own life All else is hearsay. Of course this applies in reverse, but that is life  

You said

Logically then, in relation to these discussions, it's almost like the stories alone aren't that much help or use at all.

I don't get what you mean.

Unless you deliberately discount the  narratives of others, then every person's story can be of help and use to you.

This is even true for entirely  fictional novels, movies, etc., which make you think, or present you with new perspectives, values, moralities,  and ideas, to consider.   

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Unless you deliberately discount the  narratives of others, then every person's story can be of help and use to you.

Anything can be of 'help' or 'use' in some way.  In the way I'm thinking of, 'every person's story' cannot be of help and use because of what I replied to that you said, 'it's a logical fallacy to conclude without evidences that... all stories are true'.  That probably could be shortened to just 'it's a logical fallacy to conclude without evidences', but regardless, since all stories here are without evidences, the stories alone there are not of 'use' in determining if something is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
23 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Anything can be of 'help' or 'use' in some way.  In the way I'm thinking of, 'every person's story' cannot be of help and use because of what I replied to that you said, 'it's a logical fallacy to conclude without evidences that... all stories are true'.  That probably could be shortened to just 'it's a logical fallacy to conclude without evidences', but regardless, since all stories here are without evidences, the stories alone there are not of 'use' in determining if something is true.

Ah that makes more sense.

Unless you have your own experienced knowledge you can never KNOW that anything is true, whether a teacher tells you, you read it in a book, or see it on media. 

So unless you accept, on faith,  those things as true, they cant tell you what is true either, BUT you can learn from  them all to build a considered belief about what is true and false. You can do this with people's stories, also.   

My point was more specific, however. One untruth does not make all stories untrue. One truth does not make all stories true.

Thus it is a logical fallacy to conclude without evidences  for each individual story, that ALL stories are true or that all are false.

Just because you  don't believe in angels it is illogical to discredit the experiences of those who may have had contact with them.

Likewise a person who knows angels exist can find it hard to fathom a person  who refuses to believe in them.  

It will be a mix of both(ie some true stories, some false ones) Which anyone can work out is logical, unless their mind is totally closed to some possibilities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
16 hours ago, danydandan said:

No, it should be to not hold any view either way. 

Obviously it depends on the claim, but no conclusion should be reached prior to reviewing evidence. 

But extraordinary claims, require evidence. 

ALL claims require evidence. More lies are told about mundane things than extraordinary ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
19 hours ago, danydandan said:

We are having a meeting here about what all these definitions mean. We are having an issue here with a few words, and how they pertain to scientific research and scientific evidence which what this thread is about.

Scientific evidence must be repeatable, testable and objective. 

Data are used to describe observations and depending on the accuracy required can be presented as evidence. 

OK, anecdotal stories count as data. BUT, if those tales are untestable, how relevant are they in determining the validity of a claim?

I saw Elvis in a convenience store yesterday. There were 10 other people who all commented on the person I am calling "Elvis", and they all agreed that they thought he was "the KING".  These 11 eye-witness testimonies corroborate that we all saw a resemblance to Elvis Presley. Does that indicate that we actually saw him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
34 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

OK, anecdotal stories count as data. BUT, if those tales are untestable, how relevant are they in determining the validity of a claim?

I saw Elvis in a convenience store yesterday. There were 10 other people who all commented on the person I am calling "Elvis", and they all agreed that they thought he was "the KING".  These 11 eye-witness testimonies corroborate that we all saw a resemblance to Elvis Presley. Does that indicate that we actually saw him?

You are going silly, you won't find 11 people to attest to seeing Elvis at your convenience store, that isn't an anecdote, it is just a clearly fictitious story that falls apart when we ask for the other ten to come forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are going silly, you won't find 11 people to attest to seeing Elvis at your convenience store, that isn't an anecdote, it is just a clearly fictitious story that falls apart when we ask for the other ten to come forward.

Would you like their names? 

Ya know, I noticed something today....

You don't actually contribute to any discussions, you merely assault those that do. 

Especially those of a non-deistic stance. Therefore, I must content myself with calling you a troll, as the language filters prevent me from calling you by a more appropriate appellation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Would you like their names? 

Ya know, I noticed something today....

You don't actually contribute to any discussions, you merely assault those that do. 

Especially those of a non-deistic stance. Therefore, I must content myself with calling you a troll, as the language filters prevent me from calling you by a more appropriate appellation...

Let's not worry about me, just the Elvis entourage. That is a clear case where dismissal is warranted, unless you have 11 people prepared tp sign a "stat dec" that they saw a person for whom a death certificate was issued, still alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Let's not worry about me,

But I do worry about you!

You seem full of hate for those who disagree with you. You have a void in your soul that you keep trying to fill with anger and spite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

But I do worry about you!

You seem full of hate for those who disagree with you. You have a void in your soul that you keep trying to fill with anger and spite.

That would be dejarma, not me ! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

That would be dejarma, not me ! :)

No hun. YOU.

You seem threatened by those with viewpoints different from your own.

I can see your pain. How can I help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

No hun. YOU.

You seem threatened by those with viewpoints different from your own.

I can see your pain. How can I help?

Not threatened at all, are you sure you haven't got this back to front ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Not threatened at all, are you sure you haven't got this back to front ?

Yes. 

It's obvious that you are in pain. Your anger at others is so obvious that it pours through your postings.

I am available if you would like to discuss your situation privately. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.