4 ms·

>You can't find someone else's anecdotes untrue. Sure I can when they're filled with obvious and apparent cognitive biases.

kazinator 6y ago
But that's what personal anecdotes are. They are not something like "objective observations providing raw data, without any selection or interpretation". Anecdotes might not support the conclusions they are intended to support, but that doesn't make the anecdotes per se false. Anecodotes are, well, "anecdotal".
- carlisle_ 6y ago
  I mean, you gonna stick up for the guy that just got banned?
  - kazinator 6y ago
    No, I'm sticking up for the idea that people's anecdotal experiences are valid, within their epistemological/cognitive limits, and not simply "false". That doesn't depend on whether or not someone got banned. That user unfortunately resorted to some behaviors that looked like antagonizing another user at the personal level. His interpretations of some of his experiences are off the mark. E.g. how some coworker hired interns in order to sexually victimize them is clearly not an example of women getting some sort of easy advancement or free pass. That the events happened is plausibly true; there is no basis for denying the raw facts of the anecdote. It's just not a relevant anecdote, really.
    - carlisle_ 6y ago
      You want to argue that the guy espousing sexism through his anecdotal experiences has valid anecdotes?
      - kazinator 6y ago
        Since everyone has valid anecdotes, and that person is a member of everyone, the inescapable logical conclusion is that, indeed, he has valid anecdotes. I reiterate that I'm using a standard for "valid" that is befitting of anecdotes, which is confined to the facts. It doesn't cover the cherry-picking of observations that are selected as the basis for anecdotes, or the means of drawing conclusions, or the appropriateness or relevance of the anecdotes to the discourse and the like.
        carlisle_ 6y ago
        Nobody is going to care about how semantically correct you are given one of his anecdotes was him admitting he treats women differently because of their gender. Feel free to call that valid to appease your dictionary definition, however colloquial definitions matter just as much in casual conversation.
        kazinator 6y ago
        > admitting he treats women differently because of their gender OK, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not aware of a colloquial usage of "anecdote" which covers confessions of a behavior, let alone a habitual behavior. (By which I don't intend to deny that the usage is real; it's just not known to me.) An anecdote could certainly include an admission; anything can happen in personal stories. Still, even if your definition of "anecdote" extends to admissions, I don't see how you could then call it false. If someone confesses that he treated specific women A, B and C differently, or else that he habitually does so, then the only way that can be false is that he's making it up.
        carlisle_ 6y ago
        It's the definition of the word '[in]valid' I was referring to. I'd also say this is the same thing as when I said his anecdotes were not true. What I saw was somebody using biased and bigoted thought to justify their reasoning. I think I understand your reasoning for not wanting to call human experience invalid. I don't think it applies here because of the informal context (casual conversation) and because the anecdote was used as evidence. He extends his own behavior (treating women differently) to others without any factual basis in his anecdote (since I do it other people do it too). That's entirely invalid. It also goes without saying that people often tell bald faced lies in the form of anecdotes. These anecdotes are obviously false or invalid as well.

kazinator 6y ago

But that's what personal anecdotes are. They are not something like "objective observations providing raw data, without any selection or interpretation". Anecdotes might not support the conclusions they are intended to support, but that doesn't make the anecdotes per se false. Anecodotes are, well, "anecdotal".

carlisle_ 6y ago
I mean, you gonna stick up for the guy that just got banned?
- kazinator 6y ago
  No, I'm sticking up for the idea that people's anecdotal experiences are valid, within their epistemological/cognitive limits, and not simply "false". That doesn't depend on whether or not someone got banned. That user unfortunately resorted to some behaviors that looked like antagonizing another user at the personal level. His interpretations of some of his experiences are off the mark. E.g. how some coworker hired interns in order to sexually victimize them is clearly not an example of women getting some sort of easy advancement or free pass. That the events happened is plausibly true; there is no basis for denying the raw facts of the anecdote. It's just not a relevant anecdote, really.
  - carlisle_ 6y ago
    You want to argue that the guy espousing sexism through his anecdotal experiences has valid anecdotes?
    - kazinator 6y ago
      Since everyone has valid anecdotes, and that person is a member of everyone, the inescapable logical conclusion is that, indeed, he has valid anecdotes. I reiterate that I'm using a standard for "valid" that is befitting of anecdotes, which is confined to the facts. It doesn't cover the cherry-picking of observations that are selected as the basis for anecdotes, or the means of drawing conclusions, or the appropriateness or relevance of the anecdotes to the discourse and the like.
      - carlisle_ 6y ago
        Nobody is going to care about how semantically correct you are given one of his anecdotes was him admitting he treats women differently because of their gender. Feel free to call that valid to appease your dictionary definition, however colloquial definitions matter just as much in casual conversation.
        kazinator 6y ago
        > admitting he treats women differently because of their gender OK, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not aware of a colloquial usage of "anecdote" which covers confessions of a behavior, let alone a habitual behavior. (By which I don't intend to deny that the usage is real; it's just not known to me.) An anecdote could certainly include an admission; anything can happen in personal stories. Still, even if your definition of "anecdote" extends to admissions, I don't see how you could then call it false. If someone confesses that he treated specific women A, B and C differently, or else that he habitually does so, then the only way that can be false is that he's making it up.
        carlisle_ 6y ago
        It's the definition of the word '[in]valid' I was referring to. I'd also say this is the same thing as when I said his anecdotes were not true. What I saw was somebody using biased and bigoted thought to justify their reasoning. I think I understand your reasoning for not wanting to call human experience invalid. I don't think it applies here because of the informal context (casual conversation) and because the anecdote was used as evidence. He extends his own behavior (treating women differently) to others without any factual basis in his anecdote (since I do it other people do it too). That's entirely invalid. It also goes without saying that people often tell bald faced lies in the form of anecdotes. These anecdotes are obviously false or invalid as well.