Anecdotal evidence

"Anecdata" redirects here. For the citizen science portal, see Anecdata.org.

Anecdotal evidence (or anecdata[1]) is evidence based on descriptions and reports of individual, personal experiences, or observations,[2][3] collected in a non-systematic manner.[4]

The term anecdotal encompasses a variety of forms of evidence, including personal experiences, self-reported claims,[3] eyewitness accounts of others,[5] and those from fictional sources, making it a broad category that can lead to confusion due to its varied interpretations. Anecdotal evidence can be true or false but is not usually subjected to scholarly method, the scientific method, or rules of legal, historical, academic, or intellectual rigor, meaning there are little or no safeguards against fabrication or inaccuracy.[2] However, the use of anecdotal reports in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea may be considered a testimonial, which is highly regulated in certain jurisdictions.[6]

The persuasiveness of anecdotal evidence compared to that of statistical evidence has been a subject of debate; some studies have argued for the presence a generalized tendency to overvalue anecdotal evidence, whereas others have emphasized the types of argument as a prerequisite or rejected the conclusion altogether.[7][8][9][10][11]

Scientific context

See also: Scientific evidence

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

  • "casual observations/indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[12]
  • "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"[13]
  • "evidence that comes from an individual experience. This may be the experience of a person with an illness or the experience of a practitioner based on one or more patients outside a formal research study"[14]
  • "the report of an experience by one or more persons that is not objectively documented or an experience or outcome that occurred outside of a controlled environment"[15]

Anecdotal evidence may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g., case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method, such as folklore or intentionally fictional anecdotes. Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[16] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses but never as validating evidence.[17][18]

Anecdotal evidence varies in formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence by a doctor (a case report) is subjected to formal peer review.[19] Although such evidence is seen as inconclusive, researchers sometimes regard it as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study.[20] For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of drug side effects were later sustained as "clearly correct".[21]

Where only one or few anecdotes are presented, they risk being unreliable due to cherry-picking or otherwise non-representative sampling.[22][23] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias, people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples.[24] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[25] Misuse of anecdotal evidence in the form of argument from anecdote is an informal fallacy[26] and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.), which places undue weight on possibly atypical experiences of close peers. If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty generalization.[27]

In medicine, anecdotal evidence may be subject to the placebo effect.[28]

In the legal sphere, anecdotal evidence, if it passes certain legal requirements and is admitted as testimony, is a common form of evidence used in a court of law. In many cases, anecdotal evidence is the only evidence presented at trial.[29]

For a testimony to be considered evidence, it must be given under oath, where the individual swears they only testify to their words and actions; someone intentionally lying under oath is subject to perjury. However, these legal rigors do not make testimony in a court of law equal to scientific evidence. Testimony about another person's experiences or words is called hearsay and is usually not admissible, though there are certain exceptions. However, hearsay that is not objected to or thrown out by a judge is considered evidence for a jury. This means trials contain a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence that juries find relevant. Eyewitness testimony, a type of anecdotal evidence, is considered the most compelling form of evidence by a jury.[30]

See also

References

  1. ^ "anecdata, n.", Oxford English Dictionary (3 ed.), Oxford University Press, 2023-03-02, doi:10.1093/oed/9365074374, retrieved 2024-10-03
  2. ^ a b Irwig, Les; Irwig, Judy; Trevena, Lyndal; Sweet, Melissa (2008), "The weakness of one", Smart Health Choices: Making Sense of Health Advice, Hammersmith Press, retrieved 2024-10-03
  3. ^ a b Oxford dictionary of English. Internet Archive. Oxford [England]; New York : Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-19-957112-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  4. ^ Porta, Miquel (2016-07-21), Porta, Miquel (ed.), "Anecdotal Evidence", A Dictionary of Epidemiology, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001, ISBN 978-0-19-997672-0, retrieved 2024-10-03
  5. ^ Cambridge University Press (2009). Cambridge academic content dictionary. Internet Archive. New York : Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-521-87143-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  6. ^ "16 CFR Part 255 (Oct. 1, 2024) – Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising". eCFR. Retrieved 2024-10-03.
  7. ^ Hoeken, Hans; Hustinx, Lettica (2009-10-01). "When is Statistical Evidence Superior to Anecdotal Evidence in Supporting Probability Claims? The Role of Argument Type". Human Communication Research. 35 (4): 491–510. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01360.x.
  8. ^ Hornikx, J. M. A. (2007). "Is anecdotal evidence more persuasive than statistical evidence? A comment on classic cognitive psychological studies". 164.
  9. ^ Hoeken, Hans (2001-11-01). "Anecdotal, Statistical, and Causal Evidence: Their Perceived and Actual Persuasiveness". Argumentation. 15 (4): 425–437. doi:10.1023/A:1012075630523. ISSN 1572-8374.
  10. ^ Michal, Audrey (2021). "When and why do people act on flawed science? Effects of anecdotes and prior beliefs on evidence-based decision-making". Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 6 (1) 28. doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00293-2. PMC 8023527. PMID 33825055.
  11. ^ Hoeken, H.; Hustinx, L. G. M. M. (2003). "The relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence". 502.
  12. ^ "anecdotal". YourDictionary.com. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  13. ^ "Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative – Glossary – NWSRI". www.nechakowhitesturgeon.org. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  14. ^ "Anecdotal evidence – Smart Health Choices – NCBI Bookshelf". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  15. ^ "No Love for Anecdotal Evidence". NeuroLogica Blog. 2007-03-08. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  16. ^ Riffenburgh, R. H. (1999). Statistics in Medicine. Boston: Academic Press. pp. 196. ISBN 0-12-588560-1.
  17. ^ Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, Steven Jay; Lohr, Jeffrey M. (2014). "Initial Thoughts, Reflections, and Considerations". Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2 ed.). New York: Guilford Publications. p. 9. ISBN 9781462517510. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be quite useful in the early stages of scientific investigation. Nevertheless, such evidence is almost always much more helpful in the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation) than in the context of justification (i.e., hypothesis testing [...]).
  18. ^ Mebius, A. (2022). "Against 'instantaneous' expertise". Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 17 (11) 11. doi:10.1186/s13010-022-00123-3. PMC 9490894. PMID 36127693. S2CID 252384889.
  19. ^ Jenicek, M. (1999). Clinical Case Reporting in Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann. p. 117. ISBN 0-7506-4592-X.
  20. ^ Vandenbroucke, Jan P. (2001). "In Defense of Case Reports and Case Series". Annals of Internal Medicine. 134 (4): 330–334. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-4-200102200-00017. PMID 11182844. S2CID 867759.
  21. ^ Venning, G. R. (1982). "Validity of anecdotal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: the problem of false alarms". Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 284 (6311): 249–52. doi:10.1136/bmj.284.6311.249. PMC 1495801. PMID 0006799125.
  22. ^ Weiten, Wayne (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. p. 75. ISBN 9780495601975.
  23. ^ Goodwin, C. James (2009). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. John Wiley & Sons. p. 25. ISBN 9780470522783.
  24. ^ Gibson, Rhonda; Zillman, Dolf (1994). "Exaggerated Versus Representative Exemplification in News Reports: Perception of Issues and Personal Consequences". Communication Research. 21 (5): 603–624. doi:10.1177/009365094021005003. S2CID 145050644.
  25. ^ Schwarcz, Joe; Barrett, Stephen. "Some Notes on the Nature of Science". Archived from the original on 20 September 2012. Retrieved 16 June 2022.
  26. ^ "Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
  27. ^ Thompson B. Fallacies. Archived April 20, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  28. ^ "Evaluating Treatment Products". MedicineNet.
  29. ^ "The Judicial Learning Center". 10 August 2012.
  30. ^ "Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006".
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_experience