"it's anecdotal therefore it doesn't count" is a really convenient way to shut people down on issues that data is conspicuously not collected on

@carcinopithecus a sample size of 1 is bad for stats, but it's infinitely better than 0

mathematically better by exactly * times, in fact 


* there is a lacuna in the text, where a long streak of ink seeps through leaving a tear in the page. there are signs of a struggle. the text begins again on a separate page, written in a thinner pen and a different and less mechanical hand.

Otoh it's good to have empirical evidence right? Conclusion: anecdotal evidence is a good reason to collect more data?

@derpayatz it is! But good empirical evidence takes a long amount of time to collect, and discussions based on anecdotal evidence are necessary to start that process - so when ppl say "stop talking, we can't know it's a problem without empirical data" they're actively hindering data collection efforts

@velexiraptor I used to spend time on a "skeptics" group or two on Facepalm, where especially in regards to health matters they tended to exhibit bootlicking, institutionalist behavior with respect to "official" data. In the vein of "the FDA is the arbiter of truth", "don't mind the corporate ghostwriters and higjly selective data inclusion behind the curtain", "Hail Science".

@velexiraptor your observation that very often anti-anecdote statements are used bludgeonlike in a way that always conveniently favors existing paradigms and power centers.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Radical Town

A cool and chill place for cool and chill people.