Anecdotal Evidence

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the “person who” fallacy (“I know a person who…”; “I know of a case where…” etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal evidence is often called a testimonial and is banned in some jurisdictions. The term is also sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples^[1].

I understand this to mean that anecdotal evidence does not prove something. I certainly have no argument with that. But does it mean we should dismiss it entirely? Often, I run into discussions where anecdotal evidence is simply discarded as meaningless.

Is it really worthless? I think not. Anecdotal evidence is based on someone’s observation of the world around them. Is this not where empirical investigation begins? Observation.

Some anecdotal evidence is more concretely detailed and objective than others. An anecdote where someone simply lists events, actions, etc without assuming an interpretation may still have value. No, it may not prove anything, but it can provide a starting point for further investigation.

An example from Wikipedia’s article:

“There’s abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured.”

This is a case in point where someone assumes an interpretation. It is not very detailed in that it does not mention anything at all about what medical treatment the girl may have received. So, for me, this is not the type of anecdotal evidence of which I speak.

Perhaps, if someone wanted to make a study of miracles, one should collect some of these stories and investigate deeply. I understand that the Catholic Church investigates miracles and often concludes that stories like these were not really miracles by the hand of God. So, I tend to think it would be a life’s work with little certainty at the end. People have been trying to prove or disprove the existence of “God” for a very long time.

For anecdotal evidence to become empirical evidence, it must be repeatable in studies under rigorous controls. So, I think we should continue to collect our anecdotal evidence of the world around us, being careful not to assume any interpretations. I think it would be okay to postulate, so long as we do not become convinced of an interpretation. In collecting this evidence, we should also be careful to document concrete details. What actually happened? By doing all this, we keep a curious and questioning mind set. I applaud curiosity, exploration of reality, and a questioning mind.

Here is an example of anecdotal evidence from a blog “The Other Side of My Life” in argument for the intelligence of cats:

Some years ago, we installed a cat door. We were tired of the game “In and Out”. You cat owners out there will know what I am talking about. First, the cat wants in. Then she wants out. Over and Over. So we installed this cat door. Bella (photo at top) caught on right away, going in and out, showing off to Taz (sadly, no longer with us). Taz just looked at it and her as if to say “What? I don’t get it”. A few minutes later, he went to the front door, reached for the door knob, looked at me, and meowed. Cats learn what they want to learn.

The author does detail some very concrete actions as in telling what the cats actually did. The author almost assumes an interpretation. I think she can be forgiven as she evidently has a lot of stories about her cats. You can read a few more of them on her blog, she mentions that more are on the way in the future.

This leads me to one last point. That, given one such story of this type, we cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever. However, given a preponderance of these stories, we must begin to think there may be something to it. Even Civil Courts give weight to a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. I understand this to mean that although circumstantial evidence does not prove anything, a preponderance of such evidence stands so outside statistical probability that it gains credence.

Perhaps stories like these bear further investigation…