I find that the attachment to empirical evidence brings about a certain disdain for anecdotal evidence.
So, I am asking if China really exists, for I’ve never been there. I more or less believe it exists becuase I have met people who are supposedly “Chinese”, and I wouldn’t want to call them all liars. My girlfriend lived in China for a while, and it might be a hindrance to our relationship if I suddenly stopped believing her. I’ve even spoken to people on the internet who claim to have been IN China at the time I was speaking to them.
So this land of myth and legend, where the country might suddenly block out your company’s mail servers for no apparent reason for a day, that has more people than any other ten countries besides India (That might not exist either), and has a rich historical record, may not actually exist at all. How am I to know? Maybe everyone is lying to me.
So, what qualifies anecdotal evidence as having value? At what state does the anecdote become “China”, an actual thing. How should one present anecdotal evidence within the context of this forum? It’s a question that’s plagued me for a long time, and I haven’t been sure of how to present it, so I am curious as to see what the staunch empiricists on this board have to say about it, as well as anyone who regularly slips in that anecdotal evidence for the readership and gets away with it.
I suppose I just see a wealth of data to justify the belief that there is indeed a landmass there, there are indeed many many people living there, and there is indeed a cohesive linguistic fiction of a ‘nation state’ which binds together a lot of people with significant emotional energy, etc…
If guess if we can’t agree on these points, I’m not quite sure how to go about debating them, so I’ll bow out.
This is a question I’ve had before, specifically about the phrase “Data is not the plural of anecdote.”
If we were to obtain accurate reports of all these anecdotes, I do not believe it would be fundamentaly differant than the data of any other scientic survey.
However, it would still be important to do the science part of this scientific survey. If, for example, you had anecdotal evidence from 5 people that they saw a six foot tall white rabbit named Harvey, well… it might just be best to create varying models of the data along with reporting it.
Isn’t it a matter of what the anecdotal evidence is supposed to prove? If I say that China exists because I know a Chinese woman who lives in Norway, that’s fine. If I use that anecdote to say that all Chinese are women who live in Norway, I’m smoking my socks. If I use it to say that some Chinese women live in Norway, or to refute a claim that no Chinese women live outside China, I’m fine again.
And then there’s that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” part, of course. If I say that Hell exists because I know someone who’s been there, my anecdotal evidence is likely to be put under rather more scrutiny. (Actually I have been in Hell several times, and know people who go to blues festivals there. I’ll add that most solid of proofs to my claim: a link )
The definition of anecdotal some of you are using isn’t the same as what I’m familiar with. The way I understand it, an improper use of anecdotal evidence would be to say something along the lines of, “This happened to me, therefore it is true for all instances”, i.e., “My friend lost weight on the Atkins diet; therefore anyone who does Atkins will lose weight.” Or, “I split 10s at the blackjack table and won; therefore splitting 10s is a good play.” It’s the confusion of an event that could possibly be a one-time occurence or a fluke, with the belief that such event will always occur.
I don’t think a photograph would be considered anecdotal evidence, it would be circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be valid if you have enough of it to prove the case. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for China existing. Taking that in conjunction with the the fact that there’s very little reason to believe China might not exist, I believe that China exists.
The example the OP uses, of his girlfriend telling him about her experience living in China, would be considered direct testimony if I’m not mistaken. It’s valid evidence, but it must be weighed against the likelihood that she is lying or mistaken.
Here’s some web definitions that seem pretty good (which I pared down a little):
“Anecdotal evidence” is a specific thing; it doesn’t just mean “anything that’s not ironclad proof”. As to the question, “How can we present anecdotal evidence?” - you basically want to avoid it. Anecdotal evidence, by definition, is invalid. If it’s valid, then it’s not anecdotal evidence; it’s something else.
The part about little reason to believe otherwise depends entirely on individual peoples’ experience, doesn’t it? I mean, I see very little reason to believe that God does not exist, so can’t I substitute God for China and say the same thing you said?
Well that’s self-evident, as I am the thing doing the observing of anything I experience. However, I am not certain that YOU exist.
Thanks to everyone else for their answers. I had a really subpar education in New Mexico for High School and never pursued any college. I’ve done fairly well for myself being a fairly adept auto-didact, but I am starting to become more aware of where my lack of formal education becomes an issue. I think this is one of those.
Though there is a certain level of experiential data that is enough to prove things to me, but not enough for me to validate my experience to others, that holds me back in discussions. For instance, I have a fairly intimate understanding of American drug culture, and bring that to bear in drug debates, but due to the secretive nature of the culture, I cannot offer up any proof to substantiate my claims, and often find myself confronted by people with a deeper formal education than I have disputing what I say, and basically tossing out any of my experiential evidence, because it is deemed “anecdotal”. However, I have found myself in discussions on the economics of the drug trade where I feel that the person with the economics degree is flat out wrong, based upon my experience, but I can’t figure out how to relate it in such a way that they will understand, and we can reconcile our different modes of communication.
So I would like to figure out how to present such experiential data more effectively, but I am not exactly certain how to go about it.
How do I know China exists? How do I know Lincoln was assassinated in 1865? How do I know atoms exist? How do I know Pluto has a moon?
Of course, some of these involve knowledge that I **could **acquire directly, e.g. actually going to China or looking through a telescope. But I could spend a lifetime directly verifying every “fact” I encounter, and barely make a dent in the total knowledge of humanity. and new “facts” would arise far faster than I could verify the old ones.
But our reasoning is not limited to what we empirically experience directly through our senses. Our minds take that data and form percepts and abstractions, constantly integrating it with the knowledge we already have. In other words, **knowledge is contextual. **My knowledge of China, or Lincoln’s assassination, doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it’s interrelated to every other fact I know, **and doesn’t contradict any of them. **Our brains are very good at spotting contradictions, but it’s up to us, whether to accept contradictions or dig a little deeper to sort out the truth.
If I had a shred of evidence that there was a vast ocean between India and Korea, with people vacationing on the beaches of southern Mongolia - then I’d have reason to question my knowledge of China. Or if I’d become aware that Lincoln completed his second term and became a Supreme Court Justice, I might question the “fact” of his assassination.
So I’ve got tons of evidence of China’s existence; it’s supported, actually, by every single fact I know to be true, even facts that have nothing to do with China. And there isn’t a single notion in my entire mind that hints at the non-existence of China. In short, that’s exactly what is meant by “knowing.”
But aren’t you simply observing yourself? If I might not exist because you only know me through observation, why wouldn’t your lying eyes deceive you about yourself?
)