Lupinus

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Lupinus

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
"Anecdata" redirects here. For the web portal, see Anecdata.org.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner or evidence based on stories or experiences of others.

Personal observation must be distinguished from the stories or experiences of others as these are two entirely different categories of evidential rigor. For example, personal observation is admissible as evidence in a court of law as testimony, whereas evidence based on the stories or experiences of others are usually not admissible and termed hearsay, unless there is a rare extenuating circumstance where it is admitted as evidence (see hearsay exceptions).

Anecdotal evidence given outside of a court of law, where no oath is taken, and where there are no social or legal consequences for fabricating personal experiences or fabricating the experiences of others, may be seen as suspect by people with a skeptical epistemology, though it does not prove any particular piece of evidence false (by way of logic) or false (by way of empiricism/science).

Within the science community in particular, many have a skeptical bent and categorize all anecdotal evidence as weaker than empirical evidence. However this epistomological approach is not without problems. Very few daily activities are judgments based on empirical science (and scientific experiments and studies), and the gross body of human experiences and judgments are based on evidentiary personal experience as well as anecdotes and claimed personal experiences of others, both in the social realm and even in the professional realm of life. Testimony is a form of Anecdotal Evidence that makes up the vast bulk of the evidence in justice systems world wide. Very little is empirical, scientific, or documentary evidence in law.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[1] in some jurisdictions.

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded by scientists as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine.

However, saying that all anecdotal evidence is weaker than empirical evidence commits the fallacy of composition. It is not true of all anecdotal evidence that it is always weaker than all empirical evidence. Even the statement that anecdotal evidence is generally weaker than empirical evidence would mean that there would have to be representative samplings and comparisons of each in every single field, a prospect which is impossible.

For instance, one personal experience, or relating of a personal experience could be true, while there could very well be 10 studies that demonstrate the opposite which are false. Anecdotal evidence simply has less rigor than other forms of evidence, but this does not prove it is untrue, as evidence must be judged on an individual basis in both law and science.

Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. Anecdotes may be unreliable due to too small a sample size, cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[5] Misuse of anecdotal evidence in the form of argument from anecdote is an informal fallacy[6] and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.

The anecdotal fallacy only applies if a person uses an anecdote to draw a logical conclusion, such as "I know a person who told me a story about X, therefore it is logically inescapable that X is true."

Epistomologically, one might consider the use of Anecdotal Evidence (if no logical claim is made) as an error of Empiricism, rather than an error of logic. Claiming that a personal experience, or a personal experience of another person is true, whereas a study is false could be seen as such an error, although it is perfectly possible that the empirical study is false and the personal experience was correct.

Scientific context

See also: Scientific evidence

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

  • "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[7]
  • "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"[8]
  • "evidence that comes from an individual experience. This may be the experience of a person with an illness or the experience of a practitioner based on one or more patients outside a formal research study."[9]
  • "the report of an experience by one or more persons that is not objectively documented or an experience or outcome that occurred outside of a controlled environment"[10]

Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence by a trained observer (a doctor) is called a case report, and is subjected to formal peer review.[11] Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, researchers may sometimes regard it as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question.[12] For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of drug side-effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."[13]

Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[14] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.[15][16]

If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.[17]

In any case where some factor affects the probability of an outcome, rather than uniquely determining it, selected individual cases to prove nothing; e.g. "my grandfather smoked two packs a day until he died at 90" and "my sister never smoked but died of lung cancer". Anecdotes often refer to the exception, rather than the rule: "Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses."[18]

In medicine, anecdotal evidence is also subject to placebo effects.[19]

Anecdotal evidence might be used in Medicine or science when no other form of evidence is available. For instance the question from a Doctor of: "What symptoms were alleviated and what side effects did you experience" can only be answered with anecdotal evidence, unless the patient is being observed for symptoms or side effects as part of a study (which is very rare). Thus Doctors must rely on anecdotal evidence when treating patients on an individual basis if symptoms or side effects cannot be empirically verified in a hospital or study.

See also

References

  1. ^ "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising" (PDF). FTC.gov.
  2. ^ Weiten, Wayne (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. p. 75. ISBN 9780495601975.
  3. ^ Goodwin, C. James (2009). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. John Wiley & Sons. p. 25. ISBN 9780470522783.
  4. ^ Gibson, Rhonda; Zillman, Dolf (1994). "Exaggerated Versus Representative Exemplification in News Reports: Perception of Issues and Personal Consequences". Communication Research. 21 (5): 603–624. doi:10.1177/009365094021005003. S2CID 145050644.
  5. ^ Schwarcz, Joe; Barrett, Stephen. "Some Notes on the Nature of Science". Archived from the original on 20 September 2012. Retrieved 16 June 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  6. ^ "Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  7. ^ "anecdotal". YourDictionary.com. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  8. ^ "Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative - Glossary - NWSRI". www.nechakowhitesturgeon.org. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  9. ^ "Anecdotal evidence - Smart Health Choices - NCBI Bookshelf". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  10. ^ "No Love for Anecdotal Evidence". NeuroLogica Blog. 2007-03-08. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  11. ^ Jenicek, M. (1999). Clinical Case Reporting in Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann. p. 117. ISBN 0-7506-4592-X.
  12. ^ Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2001). "In Defense of Case Reports and Case Series". Annals of Internal Medicine. 134 (4): 330–334. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-4-200102200-00017. PMID 11182844. S2CID 867759.
  13. ^ Venning, G. R. (1982). "Validity of anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: the problem of false alarms". Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 284 (6311): 249–52. doi:10.1136/bmj.284.6311.249. PMC 1495801. PMID 0006799125.
  14. ^ Riffenburgh, R. H. (1999). Statistics in Medicine. Boston: Academic Press. pp. 196. ISBN 0-12-588560-1.
  15. ^ Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Lohr, Jeffrey M. (2014). "Initial Thoughts, Reflections, and Considerations". Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2 ed.). New York: Guilford Publications. p. 9. ISBN 9781462517510. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be quite useful in the early stages of scientific investigation. Nevertheless, such evidence is almost always much more helpful in the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation) than in the context of justification (i.e., hypothesis testing [...]).
  16. ^ Mebius, A. (2022). "Against 'instantaneous' expertise". Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 17 (11): 11. doi:10.1186/s13010-022-00123-3. PMC 9490894. PMID 36127693. S2CID 252384889.
  17. ^ Thompson B. Fallacies. Archived April 20, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  18. ^ Sicherer, Scott H. (1999). "Food allergy: When and how to perform oral food challenges". Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. 10 (4): 226–234. doi:10.1034/j.1399-3038.1999.00040.x. PMID 10678717. S2CID 1484234.
  19. ^ "Evaluating Treatment Products". MedicineNet.
Categories
Table of Contents