Well it IS supposed to about finding the “straight dope,” isn’t it? If you really want to nail down the truth about something than you need to use a little empirical rigor.
Thanks, Dio. I knew where you were coming from, it’s just that there are some who dismiss ANY anecdotal evidence.
Say I have 3 friends who have contracted gonorrhea. Say I only know them trough a message board.
Friend 1: Duke, I caught gonorrhea and you don’t want that shit.
Friend 2: Duke, I caught gonorrhea and you don’t want that shit.
Friend 3: Duke, I caught gonorrhea and you don’t want that shit.
Now, to me, this anecdotal evidence is good enough that I’m not going to run right out and catch gonorrhea just to see if they are lying to me and I might actually enjoy gonorrhea. Anecdotal works for me in this case.
For the most part, I agree that it’s sufficient in a provisional way. As I said, I tend to take people at their word. But if we are really seeking a definitive answer to a question, sometimes more rigor is needed.
To be fair, it wasn’t that you offered the anecdote that garnered the response you received. It was the fact that you appeared to be using that anecdote in an attempt to disprove the other suggested methods. While your anecdote was indeed data, you also stated:
That’s actually the type of statement in which the “Plural of anecdote is not data” is the perfect response. They weren’t all way off base, as at least one of the prior suggestions is indeed an effective method of not having a period for prolonged periods of time, and your anecdote in no way backed up your statement that they were offbase, even if they had been.
OK, you go catch gonorrhea and tell me your thoughts. I’ll take you at your word. Promise 
I’m afraid as a by-product of my double pitting, I’ve encouraged the synonymous swapping of the words evidence and data. Can we agree that they are not the exact same?
For example, courtrooms hear evidence all the time, and personal observations make up a whole shit load of that evidence. Lawyer: Is Billy a nice guy? Witness: Yes, he is. Lawyer: Why do you say that? Witness: 'Cause he’s always sweet to me and mine. – that tetimony is evidence of Billy’s character and it’s no dount anecdotal. Is it bulletproof? Hell no, because by asking that the lawyer has opened the door for opposing counsel to ask about the time Billy kicked her in the shin for not pick up her dog’s poop.
Data, on the other hand, carries some unshakeable scientific connotations.
Once again, I disagree. I’ve spent a few years professionally analyzing statistical data for business process analysis. There is nothing scientific about data in and of itself. It is only as good as its collection methodology, the tool, and the person doing the interpretation. Data is subject to “garbage in, garbage out” - one of the wonders of any data processing operation. Sometimes the data I deal with is anecdotal, sometimes it is documentation, sometimes it is actual objective measurements.
Data has a few common definitions. One is indeed information subject to scientific rigor. One is basically a synonym for factual information. A person can analyze either, although the confidence in something is only as good as the source.
You may weight someone’s experience differently than you weight other forms of data. But to discount it entirely is calling them a liar. And yes, we have had those. And generally, we’ve been able to call their bullshit with real data.
Right, but that’s because a courtroom relies on exaclty two sides to every question, and each side being represented by a partisan whose only purpose is to support their own thesis. I would not want the SDMB to operate like that. For example, the case you gave is a perfect example of an anecdote that supresses information that doesn’t support it’s point. There is no reciprocal discovery, so nothing in the anecdote can be verified.
Not so, by cross examining, opposing counsel would get to other anecdotal evidence (he kicked me in the shin) that when balanced with the prior “good” evidence might come close to painting an accurate picture. The system is adversarial, no doubt, but that does not effect the whether or not something is evidence.
hey, fine by me. you certainly have the experience in that area that I don’t.
yes, but on a message board, there is no opposing counsel, and no opportunity to cross-examine. As I said, an anecdote is a story. In order for a mess of data to become a story, some things get repressed, and others get included. It is probably impossible to do this without biasing the result. That’s why scientists studies have such a fetish for documentation.
Not to beat this metaphor to death, but on this message board we are all opposing counsel and able to test someone’s story. Dude, like it or not, an anecdote IS evidence.
Most of the time I see the phrases the OP is talking about, the discussion is about the paranormal.
It will go like this.
Poster K There is no evidence of ghosts.
Poster L I saw a ghost.
Poster K Personal expierence is not evidence.
Or like this
Poster M There is no such thing as God.
Poster N God spoke to me in a dream.
Poster O I saw God once.
Poster M The plural of anecdote is not data.
That is how I see these phrases used on the Dope.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but it’s not. There is no way to “cross-examine” anything in the anecdote, since the only person who has any information is the one telling it. So we can’t get to the part about kicking the shins, because we can’t produce evidence reagrding the events independently. A lawyer would impeach a character witness, in the manner you describe above, by putting another, more hostile witness on his list. Then he can either get the impeaching evidence from that witness, or use that witness’ potential testimony to keep the character witness from straying too far from verifiable fact.
saoirse, your response is arguing that the anecdote is poor evidence, not that it is not evidence. Do you see the difference? Anecdotes are evidence, typically poor evidence.
I don’t want to parrot what Diogenes said, but it’s an assertion that evidence exists, not evidence. I can’t put it any better than that.