Talk:Anecdotal evidence
Move[edit]
Aside from the completely unnecessary opening sentences, this is entirely about anecdotal evidence. As such, I think it should be moved to "anecdotal evidence". ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 01:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Testimonial[edit]
I think this should be merged with testimonial.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 15:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Too medical[edit]
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[edit]
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)
- @Anna Livia, 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)
- @Anna Livia, 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)
Sources we ought to integrate into the article[edit]
- 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)
False opinionated statements/pseudoskepticism[edit]
The statement "Anecdotal evidence is not evidenced" is unsourced and has no factual basis. It's pure opinion.
Note, that this article talks about the "valid use of anecdotal evidence". If anecdotal evidence is "not evidence" then there is no valid use for it.
Anecdotal evidence simply lacks academic rigor and the safeguards against fabrication and inaccuracy. However this doesn't mean it is "not evidence".
This statement appears to be some form of propaganda or pseudo-skepticism. Anecdotal evidence is used, for instance, in case studies. — Unsigned, by: 2601:152:4c7c:1d0:a18e:6d23:2a5e:8fc4 / talk / contribs
- I think it would be better to say that anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence, but it is still evidence. Carthage (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, case studies were mentioned, and I believe in some really rare scenarios (say, a rare type of presentation for an already-rare condition) doctors actually do refer to those to make decisions, however weak of evidence they may be. If it's all they have. The section being contested here used a quote from Steven Novella at the top, and I'm reminded of a post about this on the blog he edits, SBM. See here. Chillpilled (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The IP makes a fair point. I have edited it a little to "good repeatable scientific evidence".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, case studies were mentioned, and I believe in some really rare scenarios (say, a rare type of presentation for an already-rare condition) doctors actually do refer to those to make decisions, however weak of evidence they may be. If it's all they have. The section being contested here used a quote from Steven Novella at the top, and I'm reminded of a post about this on the blog he edits, SBM. See here. Chillpilled (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)