Talk:Anecdotal evidence

Move
Aside from the completely unnecessary opening sentences, this is entirely about anecdotal evidence. As such, I think it should be moved to "anecdotal evidence". 01:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 01:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 15:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Testimonial
I think this should be merged with testimonial.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 15:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Too medical
This article focuses almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence in relation to medical matters, but includes nothing about its use in non-medical contexts. I realize this is mostly my fault, but I don't really know how to go about expanding the article.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Possible topics include:
 * A) Anecdotes relating to the effects of various measures (like gun control or light pollution reduction) on crime levels
 * B) Global warming anecdotes ("It's freezing outside, the coldest it's been in years! How can the earth possibly be warming up? Idiots.")
 * C) Relation to stereotypes and prejudices ("All the black people I've known have been violent criminals", "Jews are crooks", etc.)

--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Valid uses of anecdotal evidence
There should be at least 'a nod' that there are #some# valid uses of anecdotal evidence - as a starting point for research, and eg the 'don't drop it on your toes' pharmacopeia which notes isolated instances with drugs ('young person consumed x pills - no harm resulted' and similar). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Referring to the British Pharmacopoeia (currently a 6 volume boxed set, and at one point 'a very large tome'). Anna Livia (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , why did you respond to something that a BoN wrote nearly 4 years ago? There's not much chance the original poster is going to see your reply. If nobody's added to a thread for a month, consider it dead. Spud (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But there will be passing readers. Anna Livia (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources we ought to integrate into the article

 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
 * http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
 * http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh
 * http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx
 * http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/eyewitness.aspx
 * http://www.icr.org/bible-eyewitnesses/  <- (PSSST BONUS LINK)

We should really aim for gold on this article, long-term. Anecdotal evidence is SUCH a major part of woo/ufology/altmed/conspiracies/meeting Jesus/etc... Just my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)