WHY disregard "ANECDOTAL" evidence?

by hamsterbait 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hamsterbait

  In many threads I constantly hear the complaint that personal experience cannot be regarded as proof because it is not scientific.

  but when should such experience be useful? Why listen to it at all?

  For example - I have been doing mantra meditation for several months now. I did not know what to expect. But I am calmer, and sleeping better. That is the only thing that has changed in my life. Is this then NO proof that I have been helped?

  Perhaps anecdotal evidence that slicing my toes every day has helped would not be accepted either.

  Don't you think that somebody telling what they saw or what ACTUALLY happened to them has at least some validity?

  After all - people are regularly executed and imprisoned on the claims of people saying what happened to them or what they saw. Surely we should require even more rigorous proof in these cases - corroborated by other witnesses to the event or cctv footage.

  HB

  AND maybe we shouldn't accept the anecdotal evidence of what people saw and experienced in the witlesses?
• 

  TD

  Anecdotal evidence is not useless or irrelevant.

  But it becomes "unscientific" when it is used as the basis for an inductive conclusion. (i.e. When one attempts to form a general rule from a specific occurence.)

  Here's a good example: JW publications have often related stories of individuals who have survived catastrophic drops in hemocrit without receiving allogeneic blood transfusions. The conclusion presented is that transfusion is bad medicine, that does not save lives and is not needed.

  This is an unscientific application of anecdotal evidence. Every person and situation is different and not everyone can tolerate the same loss of blood.
• 

  AuldSoul

  TD,

  That's why I never profess ability to prove the existence of God to someone. I can relate my experiences that proved it to me, but I can't ever prove it to someone else, I can only tell them. I usually refrain from doing so since it tends to bring the chiding intelligentsia out of the woodwork like moths to a flame or, perhaps more fittingly, like the schoolyard bullies to the horn-rimmed nerd.

  However, is not personal experience a reasonable guide for development of our OWN beliefs, or should we make EVERY perception rejected unless it can first be made subjectable to laboratory conditions and experimentally confirmed?

  And I agree that hamsterbait raises a good question. If personal perception is unreliable as proof of the benefits of meditation, why is it perfectly suitable for purposes of murder trials, civil lawsuits, etc.? The message is, "No one should consider your personal perception as a reliable to whether there is a metaphysical reality as well as a physical reality, but your personal perception is perfectly serviceable for sentencing a man to die or to spend his entire life in prison."

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Lady Lee

  In many threads I constantly hear the complaint that personal experience cannot be regarded as proof because it is not scientific.

  In certain things it is required that any data be proven scientifically. In scientific studies the number of influences can be controlled so that the result can be attributed to one thing. Scientific evidence requires that the the study can be done repeatedly and the results will be the same.

  Anecdotal evidence does not have control over the influences. An example:

  A depressed person decides to make a change in their lives so they start to meditate. At the same time they change their job for a better one and they start walking every evening after dinner. After a short time they conclude that the meditation must be the reason for the lessening of depression.

  There is no scientific proof that the meditation is the reason for the change in depression. It could be the job change or the walking or a combination of any two or all of the three changes.

  You can get 1000 people who leave a cult and see that their lives change for the better but you would still have no scientific proof that their lives are better after leaving. There could be many other reasons for the change

  What about those who leave the cult and live in a state of fear, rejection, low self-esteem and eventually commit suicide. Some do go back .Scientifically that has to be taken into consideration.

  That is not to say that anecdotal evidence is unimportant. It is . It is just harder to prove scientifically
• 

  PrimateDave

  I have read about and tried meditation, mostly just counting breaths. One book I read described sensations and even hallucinations that many people experience from long term meditation practice. Of course, the author went on to point out that such experiences are not the goal of meditation although many fall into the trap of seeking out such experiences. What this brought to my attention was that the mind can create its own perception of reality far removed from the actual physical state of things in the world around it. If someone claims to have experienced astral travel, for example, one cannot deny their internal experience, but without conclusive external facts to back up such claims, their evidence is merely anecdotal.
  
  Dave
• 

  SirNose586

  On the grand scale of evidenciary weight, anecdotes are somewhere near the bottom....not totally useless, but weak all the same. Whenever someone touts a program or get-rich-quick scheme to you, and all they have are anecdotes, BEWARE! You are being fed a line!
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  You have to weigh your own anecdotal evidence for yourself. Sounds like you already did
  for the meditation. Others weigh it rather liberally. They are free to decide that it is "proof"
  of something. When I call them on it, it's because they have an appropriate thread where they
  asked for such criticism.

  Your thread asks for such criticism, so I will answer. Anecdotal evidence in one person's
  life that changing habits or doing some activity has benefited him- that is fine, pretty good
  proof that he should keep doing it. Applying that same anecdotal evidence that it worked
  for you, so everyone should do what you did, that is a big leap. It may be true, but it may
  not. The anecdotal evidence is just one factor among many.

  The medical field really only accepts the evidence of double-blind tests of new drugs because
  the placebo effect could make the patient better. Just telling them about the new drug and
  their learning about hope causes many to get better or feel a bit better for awhile. The double
  blind test allows researchers to compare the real drug to the placebo effect, minimizing the
  anecdotal part of the story, but even such scientific evidence includes anecdotal portions.

  Anecdotal evidence that God rewards the faithful or that there is harmony in the universe-
  well, it would have to be pretty obvious evidence. You need a double-blind test to see if just
  believing in something gives the person a positive outlook.
  A woman I know attended a talk by a woman with the same debilitating illness that she has.
  The woman listened as the speaker said that God minimized her illness so that it is virtually
  gone. The woman was angered, her debilitating illness has put her in the final stages of the
  disease where she is unable to walk and will die at a young age. She was younger than the
  speaker and had the illness from about the same age in life. What the woman heard was
  that God took care of this woman but struck my friend because she is not of that faith, or
  because she isn't good enough for God to save. Ridiculous. To me, such evidence is
  unacceptable.

  Also, large samplings are scientific evidence. Therefore, lump a bunch of anecdotal evidence
  together and you start to have a large sampling. Get a bunch of people to say how meditation
  helped them, you may have something.
• 

  Terry

  Ask any cook if their food tastes good or any jokester if they are funny and hear what they testify anecdotally.

  Ask the fisherman about the size of the fish he "almost" caught.

  Ask a college frat guy how many babes he has boffed.

  Ask a scale to weigh itself--it is just about as useful.

  In a court of law it oftens proves to be the case that "eyewitness testimony" is the least reliable.

  All personal opinion is subjective and anecdotal and colorefd by one's presuppositions, premises, expectations and philosophy.

  There were times when people saw fairies and reported them.

  Audiences see magicians make things appear and disappear....

  Now there are UFO kidnappings and Elvis sightings and BigFoot stories.

  A good story is corrupted into a good spiel or Gospel and, PRESTO! We have religion!

  Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus and tells us it was Jesus!

  Joseph Smith saw and spoke with the angel Moroni and a hundred or so solid citizens testify they saw the gold plates he translated the Book of Mormon from.

  How much anecdotal evidence can you use?

  Does it prove anything?

  Sure---gullibility.
• 

  VoidEater

  HB: but when should such experience be useful? Why listen to it at all?

  Such experiences are useful individually to you. It developes your internal landscape, your belief system. As long as it does not conflict with other information, please take it as gospel. The trap is that once you have a "belief", your mind will start to disregard contrary evidence, or discount it as "the exception that proves the rule".

  You should listen to these experiences - all of them. They will confirm or conflict with your own experience. You can then evaluate the additional information in refining your own beliefs - strengthening them or weakening them.

  These experiences help you determine your vision of and for your life; they are the inspiration for what you will do and how you will act. They will influence your experience of life as a whole.

  The distinction here is that your internal world is a different aspect of life than your external world. And that each person has their own internal world.

  HB: Don't you think that somebody telling what they saw or what ACTUALLY happened to them has at least some validity?

  Yes, but what kind of validity? To what purpose should it be put?

  I have had spiritual experiences. What triggered them? Something outside of me? Some biochemical process completely internal to me? If I have an experience, should it be something everyone must have? If I attach a particular meaning to the experience, must everyone that has the same experience come away with the same understanding?

  If many people all speak of "seeing God", yet they describe "God" as being different, what are we to make of that?

  HB: After all - people are regularly executed and imprisoned on the claims of people saying what happened to them or what they saw. Surely we should require even more rigorous proof in these cases - corroborated by other witnesses to the event or cctv footage.

  The law only asks that something be "proven" to a particular degree (depending on the court). I don't think anyone pretends this is a fair or 100% accurate system. It is why some decline jury duty - they cannot imagine being convinced of events, or cannot hold themselves responsible for passing judgment. Having served on juries, it's always a challenge to determine credibility of witnesses, especially when different witnesses either saw things from different angles, saw things with different presumptions, have different levels of observation skills, different levels of understanding, and different recollections.

  A recent study suggests that every time we access a memory, the memory is subtly changed.

  Old studies suggest that when presented with a visual scene that is wildly outside your expectations that you literally cannot process the informatino into memory.

  It is a common discussion point: in the absence of empirical evidence of events (e.g., cctv recordings), should we ever convict a defendent? After all, witnesses are not highly consistent between themselves or over time, and are subject to a variety of external influences.

  If eyewitnesses are suspect with external world events, how much more so might someone be when relating an event that is entirely internal to their psyche, entirely subjective?

  AS: However, is not personal experience a reasonable guide for development of our OWN beliefs, or should we make EVERY perception rejected unless it can first be made subjectable to laboratory conditions and experimentally confirmed?

  A perfect example of the dinstinction between our personal internal landscape and the external world.

  And a good reason for maintaining the place of religion as an internal conviction, not something that others must be compelled to accept.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  WHY disregard "ANECDOTAL" evidence?

  It is difficult to systematize. It is highly subjective.

  BTS