# Personal experience is not evidence? The hell you say! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 18, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196 "2006-04-18T19:02:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/41 "2006-04-18T23:41:39Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > Rigourously assemble enough of them though . . . . …and you’ve learned one thing: that a lot of people are telling similar anecdotes. (‘Rigorously’ assembling unsubstantiated stories doesn’t make the stories themselves rigorous; are trying to be tricky?) Presuming that these remain as ‘mere’ anecdotes (ie: lacking verification as to their veracity) the only further conclusion that you may draw from this accumulation of anecdotes is that as the number of them increases, the chances of their not being a related cause for them goes down. You learn nothing at all about wether they’re not all colluding, or independenly lying for similar reasons, or mistaking something else for what they all think they’re talking about… If you’re only collecting anecdotes that _agree_ with you, of course, the problem is worse by tenfold. I bet I could easily get ten thousand highly plausible anecdotes of people who flipped a coin and it came up heads. From all those anecdotes, can I conclude that all flipped coins always come up heads? Or even that they usually do? > [@whole bean](#): > > but if they’re not [wrong]? Then they’re right. Of course, unless you go dig up a little more evidence than the mere relation of the anecdote, you’re not going to know that, are you? There is a difference between proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, and proving it beyond **all** doubt, as you noted. Something can be extremely plausible to a reasonable person, and entirely false. Absent a legal context, I’d expect that ‘proof’ means ‘proof beyond all doubt’. Of course, I’ve taken more classes in logic than law, too. The purpose of my example was to demonstrate that wether it’s one person or ten thousand claiming they talk to God, it’s not convincing evidence by itself, and it’s certainly not _proof_. Anecdotes have only rhetorical value; even in quantity; they _prove_ nothing. As the claim becomes less implausible, the rhetorical argument becomes more believable, but that’s because it has less opposition, not because it’s a compelling proof on its own. I will concede that there are situations where rhetorical arguments are effective; cases where there isn’t proof to the contrary being the most obvious example. Still though, absent independent confirmation that at least _some_ of the anecdotes are true, they are not proof in any real form. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/42 "2006-04-18T23:43:21Z")
> [@jacquilynne](#): > > Sure, but if your conclusion is ‘not all cats are black’ then your experience of seeing a white cat is, in fact, proof. It might not be well documented proof, mind you, so people still might not accept the story as true, but if it is true, it’s sufficient. Your experience is proof to you. To everybody else, it’s hearsay. See the difference? To other people, the documentation makes all the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/43 "2006-04-18T23:47:46Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > I’ve always heard it as, “the plural of anecdote is not data.” The funny thing is, I think we could all agree that anecdote can mean:[A short account of an incident (especially a biographical one)](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anecdote) . We could also agree that data is the plural of datum, and datum can mean: [A fact or proposition used to draw a conclusion or make a decision](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=datum). If we take only those anecdotes that are based in fact (no embellishments), then I have no problem envisioning a scenario where the plural of anecdotes (which in themselves are datum) is indeed data. An anecdote is not a datum. It is merely an _an_ assertion that a datum exists. No amount of assertion can confirm that a datum actually exists. Multiple assertions that data exist do not amount to data in and of themselves. We have multiple examples of people claiming to have been abducted by flying saucers and we still lack a shred of evidence that any such thing has actually happened. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/44 "2006-04-19T00:09:21Z")
A small town was just wrapping up a long project of installing a town sewer system. There was a town meeting about the final details of the project and about having a party to commemorate the accomplishment. The mayor was proclaiming the project’s great successes to the city council when townspeople started streaming into the meeting. The first one said “My house gets flooded with raw sewage every time it rains now’” The next one said “There has been over an inch of raw sewage in my front yard 4 times this month.” This went on one after another until over half of the homes in the town had registered their verbal disgust with the project and the problems that they had personally experienced because of it. It took hours to listen to the complaints because there were several hundred. The city council looked very worried and looked to the Mayor to say something to address what he had heard. The wizened old mayor stood up and said “My dear people, the plural of anecdote is not data! Please join us at our celebration next Saturday” ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/45 "2006-04-19T00:30:35Z")
I can well imagine a good mayor might send out a few contractors to assess the problem before the town shelled out any money. Personal anecdotes are a often a fine inducement to start an investigation, but, depending on your goals, they might not be sufficient by themselves. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/46 "2006-04-19T14:52:37Z")
Upon reflection and the helpful contribution of others, I see that there is certainly a nuance (that being that the word ‘anecdote’ connotes a certain unreliability that accompanies a recalled (as opposed to recorded) event) to the statement “the plural of anecdote is not proof” that makes it valid, at least in a scientific context. Additionally, I think that in most instances it is safe to say that the statement “the plural of anecdote is not data” also relies on the same nuance to stand as generally true. However, moving from this self imposed hijack (can it even be a hijack if it’s in the OP) to my real beef, is anyone still willing to say that “personal observations/experience s are not evidence?” Again, what seems to be the prevailing idea of what “evidence” is really got me going, and it came after seeing it several times in a row in recent threads: for example, someone would detail a laundry list of circumstances that lead to a conclusion and another would reply, “where’s your evidence?” Whaa? Or, one might say, “it seems as though in areas heavily populated by Mexican immigrants, there are a lot of bi-lingual signs.” to which another would reply, “your observation is not evidence.” Whaa, whaa? ---
**Author:** ![Aangelica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Aangelica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aangelica)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/47 "2006-04-19T15:08:04Z")
The problem, I think, lies in the proliferation of persons on anonymous fora to generate anecdotes to \*make themselves an expert \* on a given topic. It’s one thing to join a discussion and describe your experience of the topic - quite often that’s actually even data (probably not the best source of data - or the most objectively reliable, but data all the same). It’s a beast of another color to essentially say “It happened thusly in my case, therefore that must be the way it always is” or to say “I had an experience once relating to the topic and therefore I am an expert on all facets of this topic! Fear my knowledge and bow before my superiority!” _That_ is the attitude that lies at the root of the “anecdotes aren’t data” rubric. Anecdotes have validity in most discussions - they can even be considered data in a lot of discussions. (Pause for the anecdotes are never data crowd to gather their ire). This is, however, comes with the same burden as any other data - if it cannot be verified (or repeated), then its value is negligible. Example: a discussion of raku pottery techniques is raging in GQ (hey, much weirder things have happened in GQ than raku pottery). Several years ago, I made some pottery using the raku technique - so I offer up what I learned (say it was that in my experience atmospheric conditions will affect the glazing result on a raku-fired pot - which is true. If it rains like a bastard, then the moisture will often seep into the firing if you do an outdoor firing and give you color results that weren’t what you were expecting.) It’s anecdotal, but it’s evidence. It wouldn’t be hard to verify I took some pottery classes as an undergrad and what the curricula of those classes were. Now, if I set myself up as an expert based on one class taken as a relaxation class my senior year in college - that would make me the kind of poster the “anecdote isn’t data” crowd abhor. And the plural of “verifiable anecdote” _is_ actually data - that’s the keystone of science. The problem lies in the “verifiable” bit, of course. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/48 "2006-04-19T15:37:12Z")
Oh, this has pissed me off for ages. There was a thread in GQ about what prostitutes use when they have their periods. I posted that I had watched a documentary about a Melbourne brothel, in which one of the girls was shown purchasing sponges, and she said that this was what she and all the other girls used. Now, I didn’t say ALL prostitutes used sponges, I said there was evidence that at least one did. I was then told by someone to go and find a primary source, because anectdotes aren’t data! _Hello_, a contemporaneous video interview with a genuine real-life prostitute _is_ a primary source! Anyway- while it is not good practice to base everything on anectdotal evidence, or to generalise from it, it is also not a great idea to dismiss it completely. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/49 "2006-04-19T16:35:57Z")
the problem with using anecdotes as proof is that they are not rigorous. I understand that was said before, but not applied porperly, I think. I cna offer an anecdote to illustrate, but not prove, my statement. My ex-brother-in-law was unemployed for several months. He told me that he had been turned down by three different prospective employers, because he was a German-American and the interviewers were Jewish. You don’t have to believe my story at all, but it illustrates the way that an anecdote only offeres information that defends a particular point of view. My xBiL was supressing information that supports other explanations. People do this when they relate anecdotes. If you didn’t supress some information, you wouldn’t have a story. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/50 "2006-04-19T17:12:49Z")
I said it before in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=302643), and I’ll say it again here: > [@Me](#): > > There are certain scenarios where arguments from anecdotal evidence can be considered valid. They are rare, but they do exist. The most common example of one would be a situation where a poster is making an absolute statement; a claim that something is always or never the case. > > Scenario One > Poster X: No fnords eat chicken. > Poster Y: Bullshit. I have a fnord, and I just gave it some chicken, and it ate it. > > If you trust Poster Y’s word, then his argument is valid. If his fnord ate chicken, then the assertion that “no fnords eat chicken” is disproven. Of course, whether or not you should trust Y’s claim is a personal judgement, and Y would do well to provide us with further evidence on which to base our assessment (for example, a picture of his fnord eating some KFC). > > Now, this does not translate to situations where Poster X’s case is anything less extreme. > > Scenario Two > Poster X: Most fnords, in general, eat broccoli and cheese. > Poster Y: Bullshit. I have a fnord, and I just gave it some broccoli and cheese, and it didn’t eat it. > > In this case, Y’s argument is invalid (and he’s an idiot), because even if you believe his statement, the fact that one fnord does not eat broccoli and cheese does not necessarily mean that the majority of fnords also do not. > > The difference between Scenarios one and two is vast in regard to the validity of anecdotal evidence. The fact that this distinction seems to escape some people, however, does not mean that there are no situations where a single instance of personal experience can be of value to the discussion. There now. That should be perfectly clear to all involved. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/51 "2006-04-19T17:23:10Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Oh, this has pissed me off for ages. > > There was a thread in GQ about what prostitutes use when they have their periods. I posted that I had watched a documentary about a Melbourne brothel, in which one of the girls was shown purchasing sponges, and she said that this was what she and all the other girls used. Now, I didn’t say ALL prostitutes used sponges, I said there was evidence that at least one did. > > I was then told by someone to go and find a primary source, because anectdotes aren’t data! > > _Hello_, a contemporaneous video interview with a genuine real-life prostitute _is_ a primary source! > > Anyway- while it is not good practice to base everything on anectdotal evidence, or to generalise from it, it is also not a great idea to dismiss it completely. The problem with your ancedote is not the documentary itself, but that we would only have your word for it that the documentary exists at all. A link to the documentary itself would constitute primary evidence, but the _per se_ claim you _saw_ a documentary amounts to nothing but an unverified assertion that a datum exsts. It’s not a datum in and of itself. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/52 "2006-04-19T19:24:49Z")
But irishgirl has been posting here for ages. To the best of my knowledge, she has not been called out for being an untruthful poster. Therefore, her claim that she has seen such a documentary carries validity with me. And, since I have some respect for her intellegence, her claim that she remembers about sponges and prostitutes is worth considering. Also, because I know that sponges can be an excellent way to keep sex from getting messy at that time of the month, her assertion is further believable. Now if IJUSTJOINED with his guest membership posts and says that he has seen a documentary where ALL protitutes take time off at that time of the month, I’ll give it less weight. I don’t know him, nor do I know if he retains information with accuracy. The claim of ALL lacks validitity because it is absolute, as well as because what I know of prostitution and menstrual cycles, while some prostitutes could afford to take a week off each month, others are in dire straights and would find some easily accessible method to allow them to continue to work. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/53 "2006-04-19T19:41:34Z")
Subjective evaluations of the credibility of the storyteller still do not amount to verification that the storyteller’s alleged datum actually exists. “I believe her” is not evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/54 "2006-04-19T20:44:21Z")
I disagree. Its evidence. In a court it would be circumstantial evidence, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a data point. Hell, even when I deal with DATA, real numbers and measurements, its only as good as the measurement system. (One of my personal pet peeves is that anyone who thinks that just because its formatted as what is generally accepted as data its good. A lot of data is junk, collected by flawed methods or by miscalibrated machinery. Or its used wrong - applied to a different population - Hey, its a number, its data!) The entire field of Anthropology is based on such ancedotal observations and stories. So is History. When you are analyzing the letters of Civil War soldiers, you have no idea how much TRUTH is there, but enough like experiences draw a picture. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/55 "2006-04-19T20:53:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The problem with your ancedote is not the documentary itself, but that we would only have your word for it that the documentary exists at all. A link to the documentary itself would constitute primary evidence, but the _per se_ claim you _saw_ a documentary amounts to nothing but an unverified assertion that a datum exsts. It’s not a datum in and of itself. The documentary might be a put on, the girl might not be a prostitute, etc. Is the only unimpeachable data that which we produce ourselves (but cannot share with others since then it would be anecdotal)? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/56 "2006-04-19T21:11:31Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I disagree. Its evidence. In a court it would be circumstantial evidence, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a data point. Hell, even when I deal with DATA, real numbers and measurements, its only as good as the measurement system. It’s not a data point, it’s an _assertion_ of a data point. The alleged documentary itself cannot be examined or even verified to exists. I am talking about _scientific_ standards of evidence here and from a scientific standpoint, assertions are not data. > [@](#): > > (One of my personal pet peeves is that anyone who thinks that just because its formatted as what is generally accepted as data its good. A lot of data is junk, collected by flawed methods or by miscalibrated machinery. Or its used wrong - applied to a different population - Hey, its a number, its data!) I agree insofar as anyone actually thinks that. Scientific standards don’t work that way, though. > [@](#): > > The entire field of Anthropology is based on such ancedotal observations and stories. No it isn’t. Anthropology involves all kinds of hard data. Anecdotes, in themselves, would never be taken as proof of anything in the field, although they could be _investigated_ to see if they can yield hard data. > [@](#): > > So is History. When you are analyzing the letters of Civil War soldiers, you have no idea how much TRUTH is there, but enough like experiences draw a picture. Any historian would tell you that the field is full of uncertainty, that much of what is accepted is accepted provisionally, and that lots of our assumptions about history cannot be proven to a scientific certainty. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/57 "2006-04-19T21:14:37Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > The documentary might be a put on, the girl might not be a prostitute, etc. When did I say I would accept the documentary at face value? You’re actually proving my point. As long as the alleged data cannot be verified and examined, it’s empirically unsound to accept the allegation itself as a datum. > [@](#): > > Is the only unimpeachable data that which we produce ourselves (but cannot share with others since then it would be anecdotal)? I don’t understand what you’re asking. What do you mean by data “we produce ourselves?” ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/58 "2006-04-19T21:41:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > When did I say I would accept the documentary at face value? You’re actually proving my point. As long as the alleged data cannot be verified and examined, it’s empirically unsound to accept the allegation itself as a datum. I wasn’t really arguing your point, that was my point. When does ANY data pass muster? When you yourself verify it and examine it. So all data is worthless unless we measure and compile it ourselves? > [@](#): > > I don’t understand what you’re asking. What do you mean by data “we produce ourselves?” Sorry, “compile” ourselves. It seems like no matter what the data or the source, it will always be suspect. The only data that I can view with certainty is what I measure and compile on my own, yet as soon as I share that, it’s anecdotal and cannot be viewed as accurate by anybody else. It’s up to them to verify and examine it, so why bother with ever looking at anybody else’s data in the first place? I know I’m going a little far with this, but every scientific observation is really just an anecdote. I put a burner under a glass of water, measure it’s temperature, record the readings of the thermometer. I post the results on a message board and now my readings are a worthless anecdote, moments ago they were a scientific experiment. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/59 "2006-04-19T21:51:11Z")
Ah, see, I was unaware that the SDMB was a forum that adhered to SCIENTIFIC standards of data on questions like “what does a prostitute do during her period.” Since its unlikely that’s been scientifically studied, the best we can do is speculation and ancedotal data. Personally, I prefer ancedotal data (like “I saw this documentary”) than speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196/60 "2006-04-19T22:11:01Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > I wasn’t really arguing your point, that was my point. When does ANY data pass muster? When you yourself verify it and examine it. So all data is worthless unless we measure and compile it ourselves? > > Sorry, “compile” ourselves. > > It seems like no matter what the data or the source, it will always be suspect. The only data that I can view with certainty is what I measure and compile on my own, yet as soon as I share that, it’s anecdotal and cannot be viewed as accurate by anybody else. It’s up to them to verify and examine it, so why bother with ever looking at anybody else’s data in the first place? I’m saying that the only data which is valid is that which can be verified and examined, yes. It doesn’t necessarily have to be _personally_ examined to be accepted but the data has to at least be _available_ for verification. Once again an assertion that eveidence exists is not evidence in and of itself. > [@](#): > > I know I’m going a little far with this, but every scientific observation is really just an anecdote. I put a burner under a glass of water, measure it’s temperature, record the readings of the thermometer. I post the results on a message board and now my readings are a worthless anecdote, moments ago they were a scientific experiment. But these experiements are all repeatable and verifiable for anyone so inclined. You don’t _have_ to take anyone’s word for it and that’s the difference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/personal-experience-is-not-evidence-the-hell-you-say/353196.md?page=4)