[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: In Defense of Anecdotal Evidence
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: In Defense of Anecdotal Evidence
- From: [email protected] (John Anonymous MacDonald, a remailer node)
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:16:06 -0800
- Comments: There is _no way_ to determine the originator of this message.If you wish to be blocked from receiving all mail from the remailernetwork, send your request to the <[email protected]>mailing list. The operator of this particular node can bereached at <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
At 9:54 AM 12/13/1996, Rob Carlson wrote:
>This doesn't make studies or statistical evidence true. Just more
>reliable than anecdotal evidence. Humans who will lie about their
>observations will also produce flawed studies. Again the former
>(anecdotal) is unverifiable, but I can check the latter (statistical)
>independently.
One other point I forgot to make:
It is expensive to verify a long statistical study. Not only does it
require extensive knowledge of statistics, but you may actually need
to reproduce much of the work. The only people who can afford to pay
for such verification work may not be the same people that I would
trust.
Anecdotal evidence is inexpensive to collect. In many circumstances
the cost benefit analysis favors it.
Red Rackham