At 12:09 AM 12/12/1996, E. Allen Smith wrote:
From: IN%"mjmiski@execpc.com" "Matthew J. Miszewski" 11-DEC-1996 19:43:51.88
If I wanted to I could repeatedly issue heart-wrenching stories of poverty in America (similar, of course, to politicians using "real world examples" in speeches). You seem to assume that this would be "wrong".
As did Ronald Reagan in talking about "welfare queens"... as could I in discussing how my grandparents got out of poverty and have two children with MDs and one with a PhD. Statistics are preferable to anecdotal evidence for just this reason; I've seen that over and over again in science. Anecdotes are for lawyers talking to juries and demagogic politicians talking to the masses.
Statistics are a useful tool, but they have their problems. Their accuracy is often in doubt. Most scientific data comes with an error analysis so you can tell what the figure means. For some reason statisticians never do this so we cannot tell whether their numbers are accurate to within 0.1%, 1.0%, 10%, or even worse. There are many other problems. For instance, users of statistics assume they have a random sample, even in cases where that is far from clear. Social statistics are a black art. There was a study awhile back which claimed gun ownership reduced violent crime. That is a surprising result. It was apparently obtained by subtracting out all the other factors that could explain the differences in the areas studied. This process must involve some real stretches statistically. I can't imagine how cultural differences are determined and subtracted - I assume it is a subjective process. Another problem with statistics is that they are difficult to verify. We may wish to verify the information in cases of deception - sometimes well meaning - but also for cases of statistical incompetence. It is also hard to explore the details of the study if the authors are unavailable. The advantage of first hand experience is that it is primary evidence. You know it's true because you were there and saw it. The advantage of anecdotal evidence (in the sense we have been using it) is that the person who is telling you the anecdote was there and saw it. You can cross-examine them and get a full understanding of the evidence provided. Specific examples, that is anecdotal evidence, also provide a nice framework for discussing our abstract beliefs about what is morally right or wrong, or what various parties should be expected to do or say in particular situations. Specific examples also make it possible for the participants in the conversation to deepen their own understanding of their experiences. You might have seen something and interpreted it in a particular way. Somebody else might be able to show you how you misinterpreted what you saw. Red Rackham