3 ms·
People are beginning to preface anecdotal evidence with "this just anecdotal, but ...", as if there is some loophole to the fallacy. It's really annoying when
by kmfrk 14y ago
People are beginning to preface anecdotal evidence with "this just anecdotal, but ...", as if there is some loophole to the fallacy.
It's really annoying when people confuse humility and an acknowledgement of a scarcity of evidence with jumping head-first into making a useless, fallacious argument.
Personal stories are fine[1], but it's worth keeping in mind that one of the pre-eminent unironic peddlers of anecdotal evidence as proof is Thomas friggin' Friedman.
[1]: For spotting "black swans", for instance.
- _delirium 14y agoIn discussion forums I'm okay with the preface, because I read it as something like an implicit request for more information, "I think I've noticed [x] but don't have any real data, anyone know something further?" But I wouldn't write an article (not even an essay-length blog post) based on that premise.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago>> People are beginning to preface anecdotal evidence with "this just anecdotal, but ...", as if there is some loophole to the fallacy. maybe we just subconsciously hope that maybe, someday, someone/thing/program will just come along and compile all our "just anecdotes" into real, hard, data? So we just have to write it down, just in-case maybe that person is reading our story right now!
- 1123581321 14y agoPeople begin with that qualification because otherwise, someone will say it's not data and derail the conversation.