Talk:Anecdotal evidence

From WikiSynergy

Revision as of 01:54, 17 August 2009

"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)