|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
07-05-2016, 09:28 AM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Can anecdotal evidence be conclusive?
Isn't anecdotal evidence non conclusive by definition?
I read this, "Anecdotal evidence concludes that 96% of us are symptom free by 2 years. 99% are symptom free by year 3." and thought, how can anecdotal evidence be conclusive?
Can it be?
|
07-05-2016, 09:38 AM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
That's what I've heard.
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
07-05-2016, 09:48 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
Isn't anecdotal evidence non conclusive by definition?
I read this, "Anecdotal evidence concludes that 96% of us are symptom free by 2 years. 99% are symptom free by year 3." and thought, how can anecdotal evidence be conclusive?
Can it be?
|
That seems to be results based upon casual observation rather than results based upon peer-reviewed scientific analysis. It's kinda like me saying that I have never met a Trump supporter in real life, so therefore nobody in the world supports Trump.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
07-05-2016, 10:26 AM
|
|
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,557
|
|
From the English it is logical.
It is saying openly I am coming to a conclusion based on anecdotal evidence.
So my conclusion is extremely modified.
Now you can reject that as bullshit.
|
07-05-2016, 10:47 AM
|
|
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
Isn't anecdotal evidence non conclusive by definition?
I read this, "Anecdotal evidence concludes that 96% of us are symptom free by 2 years. 99% are symptom free by year 3." and thought, how can anecdotal evidence be conclusive?
Can it be?
|
At the very least, quoting numerical data to the single percentage point on such basis is 'false precision.' It would be more appropriate to say 'anecdotally, most are symptom-free in two years and nearly all in three.'
Context? I suspect this is an advocate talking, and he's hoping we mainly are impressed by those numbers in the high 90's.
Anecdotal evidence is at best indicative. It's wrong to act like it proves anything. If it's all you've got, it's all you've got, but keep in mind you're on shaky ground then.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|
07-05-2016, 11:56 AM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
At the very least, quoting numerical data to the single percentage point on such basis is 'false precision.' It would be more appropriate to say 'anecdotally, most are symptom-free in two years and nearly all in three.'
Context? I suspect this is an advocate talking, and he's hoping we mainly are impressed by those numbers in the high 90's.
Anecdotal evidence is at best indicative. It's wrong to act like it proves anything. If it's all you've got, it's all you've got, but keep in mind you're on shaky ground then.
|
thanks all, for the replies
This is exactly what I had come up but decided to ask for the case studies that supported these percentages as it could be anecdotal yet not dubious.
|
07-05-2016, 04:50 PM
|
|
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
|
|
Every anecdotal case study could be completely accurate in what it reports, but conclusions based on just a few uncontrolled 'data points' are still, inherently, inescapably dubious.
I don't used 'dubious' here to mean any conclusion is 'probably wrong.' I use it to mean no conclusion can be confidently accepted on this basis--one does not know if it is right or wrong.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|
07-06-2016, 07:10 AM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
Every anecdotal case study could be completely accurate in what it reports, but conclusions based on just a few uncontrolled 'data points' are still, inherently, inescapably dubious.
I don't used 'dubious' here to mean any conclusion is 'probably wrong.' I use it to mean no conclusion can be confidently accepted on this basis--one does not know if it is right or wrong.
|
it was some loud mouth talking out their ass as it turns out
thanks again for your thoughts
|
07-06-2016, 08:01 AM
|
|
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,122
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
it was some loud mouth talking out their ass as it turns out
thanks again for your thoughts
|
There's only a billion of those around.
You're welcome.
__________________
If you Love Liberty, you must Hate Trump!
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 PM.
|