Personally I use anecdotal information to aid my own memory, if I can relate something to 'life' it has a better chance of lodging in my knoggin; I also use it to engage my own curiosity and motivate further investigation.
I was reading Bindeweede's post about the benefits of touch, being stroked etc and I had to sit on my instinct to type back 'Any groom worth their salt could have told them that.' In my working life before uni as 'head girl' in a good yard I taught how important it was to use touch/grooming/justplacing a hand still on a horse etc in retraining problem horses AND those who were ill. I never thought it was supernatural but just took it for granted it was beneficial because I could see the results - I put it down to relaxing the horse.
Ok enough story telling... but for years that (observation - anecdote) was my primary means of sorting out the wheat from the chaff, it enabled to to see horse whisperers were tricksters, alongside acupuncture and a few other quack cures; I don't think it was ineffective. Most people in my world still live like that, it's something I remember keenly and I see how it gets misused to spread rumour and fears.
How do the Skeptic community view anecdote? Do you still use it? What reaction do you tend to have when you hear it used?
I think it does have a place in science but as a motivator and ideas fund rather than as evidence.
Anecdote certainly has a place - however it is in determining how credible it is is where the problems start.
Anecdotal evidence can provide the impetus to go investigate something, or it can provide some backup to a credible theory. However where extraordinary claims are concerned then anecdote can't really class as evidence in any way.
Memory and perception are continually proven to be fallible and people place more credence in anecdotal evidence than they realise they should.
To me the big problem with anecdotal evidence is that it continues to propogate myths that have been scientifically debunked. Things like dowsing for instance, we all know why it seems to work, but to an untrained observer, it appears to be a real effect.
Ultimately, we shouldn't dismiss anecdotal evidence out of hand, but we should look for some solid evidence somewhere to back up the claim or experiences.
I don't! Why does it seem to work, please?Originally Posted by FarSideOfTheMoon
Operative words being 'seems to work' - probability and confirmation bias.
I certainly think that anecdotes have an important part to play in new thinking.
In medicine, sometimes a drug to treat one condition seems to influence another - positively or negatively. An unexpected side effect that did not show in clinical trials. These anecdotes can form the basis of further research.
I also think that anecdotes can 'illustrate' a point, though never prove it.
However, when the anecdotes fly in the face of harder evidence - for example homeopathy - I think they can be quite safely dismissed.
Regaine and Zyban are the two that spring immeadiately to mind.
Regaine was a high blood pressure treatment and Zyban was first trialled (and is still used) as an anti-depressant
Ok this is making alot of sense, and I'm relieved to some extent that it's not far, if at all different, from my own thinking.
There was another reason I asked the question, something that has often challenged me in my latter working life. Post uni I've pretty much worked with people with a slant towards protecting their rights (eg Children's Rights Officer), however I'm aware of a whole host of 'difficulties' in using personal experience to guide practice. I'm waffling - I'll try to cut to the chase.
Service users, for example, are privvy to information that providers are not; a different perspective and their information can be priceless BUT it will never have the backing of more scholastic 'evidence', I've even seen kids trained and given the skills to to provide the latter but then you change the kid and in turn run the risk of changing their memories (which we all know aren't exactly solid!). What I observe happening, as more and more service provision is required to be both evidence based AND involve service users, is the growth of means by which both often incompatable sources of information are cooked rather than acknowledge and say openly how anecdotal evidence/experience can be used well.
I guess this sounds pretty removed from a skeptic site - or maybe not? It certainly isn't removed from our lives because this issue is a constant in everything from local government, the buses to healthcare and the relationship each of us has with our GP.
I reckon it has a lot to do with why homeopathy is popping up in the NHS too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks