To think ancedotal evidence does count?

[Angelfootprints]

I have seen an increasing tactic on threads to dismiss anecdotal evidence From the "opposition". Especially on topics that are subjective ( religion, feminism , classism etc)

I think anecdotal evidence does count. It forms our life experiences and not everything can be measured in a scientific way. Some studies could be outdated, have an agenda or misinterpreted findings.

Science and studies don't always have the answers.

For example have been having medical problems which recently might be caused by a certain medication. There is no scientific studies to confirm this, yet googling this medication I have seen lots of women report these problems. Should I ignore all the anecdotal evidence because science (and the doctors) say it can't be true?

I think experiences from living, breathing people can be just as valid.

I quite agree although I was told the other day on a thread that my experience didn't count at all

The plural of anecdote IS data. This is often misquoted but fundamentally if you take every bodies anecdotal experience, you are collecting a body of data.

It depends whether the anecdotal experience contradicts proper research or whether its an anecdotal experience into something which hasn't been researched fully.

For instance breastfeeding, the research is unequivocal. However you'll get lots of women on threads saying they formula fed and their child never had ear infections, asthma, eczema, is top of the class, etc.

Does that mean those women are wrong though Viva? After all, it is their experience?

Quite agree Angel.
Though sometimes our anecdotes can be a bit circumstancial.

So eg, I think bird numbers are increasing,
But according to the RSPCA, and other people in the country, bird numbers are falling.

I am definitely seeing more birds, and so are others in my area.
But my anecdote is biased, as it is only based on a small area.

[this all assumes I know the real meaning of the word anecdote]

It depends on the anecdote and what it's trying to prove.

In the example you mention - lots of people having the same or similar reactions to a medicine - then it can be useful in setting up an hypothesis for science to investigate.

But most anecdotes that are being used to prove something are unfalsifiable and therefore useless.

Please don't be so dismissive of science. It might not have all the answers but it has a darn sight more than anything else does. Not a single mystery of life &/or the universe has been solved by anything other than science.

No, of course they're not wrong. But you normally see those sort of comments on a thread where people are maybe making a decision on whether or not to breastfeed.

The women who had the experience aren't wrong but if someone uses those experiences to inform their decision then that's not really the best way to make a decision if the research with a much larger sample size is saying the opposite.

Angelfootprints - of course it doesn't mean they are 'wrong', though they are certainly misguided if they are using their experience alone to rubbish scientific evidence.
They may be in the minority, this doesn't mean their experience is invalid, of course not, but when used for example as 'my child never went in a car seat but was fine' - well you can see the problem surely?

I agree with you.

Im not dismissive of science, I just think people sometimes blindly take it as the holy grail without questioning it or considering it could be wrong.

You only have too look through history. Things we believe now could well be proven wrong in the future.

Back to anecdotal evidence, as a small example science tells me I should first feel baby move at around 16 weeks.

I felt dc2 move at about 11 weeks. The HCP laughed this off, but only recently I saw a thread with other women saying they felt baby move long before 16 weeks. So are we all wrong and none of us really felt baby early at all?

My DS was exclusively FF. He's never been ill & is reasonably smart etc. As far as I can tell, he's suffered no ill effects.

But this does not mean that the science that tells us that breast is best is wrong. Science is not basing itself on a sample of one - the sample is much, much larger and a trend emerges.

"Back to anecdotal evidence, as a small example science tells me I should first feel baby move at around 16 weeks."

Well that means that the median is probably 16 weeks, therefore you will get women feeling first movement between say, 10 weeks and 20 weeks. Just statistics, innit. Science isn't black and white or absolute, there are always anomalies of course.

I just think people sometimes blindly take it as the holy grail without questioning it or considering it could be wrong

Maybe some people do - but science itself doesn't. It's always, always questioning itself. That's how it moves on.

Don't know why your HCP said that about feeling your baby move. I was always told that you can feel babies in 2nd and subsequent pregnancies much sooner than you can in the 1st. For some experienced mums it's feeling the baby move that prompts them to POAS.

some well regarded sociological/psychological research is autobiographical - not unlike anecdote?

here for eg (and it's motherhood related)

www.amazon.co.uk/Maternal-Encounters-Ethics-Interruption-Psychology/dp/0415455014

The answer is "it depends".

It depends on a lot of things. What you are trying to make a case for, what the nature of the anecdote is... all sorts of stuff.

Anecdotal evidence is, by its very nature, subject to inaccuracy. Any police officer who has ever reported eyewitness statements at a crime scene will tell you this. ("Oh, yes, he was definitely black" etc.)

What a proper scientific survey and gathering of data does is to collect sufficient data for the "blips" and inaccuracies to be statistically insignificant.

It's a bit like the person who says "I know someone whose brother's wife's cousin is on benefits and lives the life of Riley, they've got plasma TVs and a big car and they go on holiday twice a year." This may not actually be untrue (allowing for a little exaggeration). What it almost certainly is, is statistically insignificant. This person is not representative of the vast majority of people on welfare, and this one anecdote needs to be set against the actual evidence which says that benefit fraud accounts for less than 1% of welfare spending.

Sorry to use a well-known MN "hot potato" as the example, but I think it makes the point pretty well!!

i suppose it's whatever side of the qualitative/quantitative paradigm you are on?

There is also those things that are nearly impossible to prove with stats, as culture tells us otherwise.

A classic one being the isssue of men and porn. If a poster claims their dp doesn't watch porn they are met with a lot of opposition and often linked to the famous "we couldn't find a man who never watched porn study". There is the study. The evidence.

A lot of posters will mock the poster- but really your on to a losing battle as you cannot prove your position. How could you?It doesn't mean its not the truth though and what the poster is saying is invalid.

Anecdotal evidence is important. If you believe strongly something then it subconsciously will affect your behaviour/reaction in some way.

Think placebo effect.

Well, the porn thing is a classic example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in action - you affect the thing being studied by the act of studying it. The same is true of sex surveys in magazines - people won't be completely honest.

For things which you can't "prove" you can still collect evidence. Nobody can prove fairies don't exist, but given that every example of fairies so far found in the world is fictional or a hoax, one can comfortably draw the conclusion that they don't. Unless new evidence comes to light.

I suppose what I was saying above about anecdotes is that there will always be examples which appear to "contradict" or "disprove" a theory - until you look into them, weigh them against the other evidence, and realise they actually don't.

As Kim said - most people using stats to try and prove something don't really understand stats.

And all that study about porn demonstrates is that it is "unlikely" that a man has never looked at porn - not that there's absolutely no men anywhere that don't.

"A lot of posters will mock the poster- but really your on to a losing battle as you cannot prove your position. How could you?It doesn't mean its not the truth though and what the poster is saying is invalid."

If they're talking about their own experience of course it's not 'invalid', but if they're saying that their experience negates the science, yes, the conclusion that the person is drawing is incorrect.

Yeah - but Dad - they couldn't find any men in their sample (apparently) who hadn't looked at porn so couldn't make a comparative study.

Mind you - some might have been saying they had when really they hadn't, so you might be right.