From: nobody@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald, a remailer node)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:23:11 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: In Defense of Anecdotal Evidence
Message-ID: <199612132316.PAA17263@cypherpunks.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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