History Main / AnecdotalFallacy

3rd Feb '16 10:43:27 AM CaptainCrawdad
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Even better, people on both sides of the debate will pull this off. If your grandma didn't make a recovery then God doesn't exist, but you dismiss any cases where she did as 'lucky', while believers will take any recovery as unassailable proof of God, and any case without a recovery was God's will.
* Another instance of this is what is sometimes called "argument from mere analogy" -- the mistaken belief that because analogy is often used to ''illustrate'' proof, therefore analogy ''is'' proof.
** One example is used by those who believe that time is ''the'' fourth dimension, and that therefore no spatial fourth dimension is possible.[[note]]What Relativity actually says is that time is ''a'' fourth dimension -- at least for the purpose of Relativity calculations.[[/note]] They "prove" this by arguing that a being who is capable of time travel, and who finds itself trapped in a hollow cube, can escape by travelling to a time before the cube existed, or after it ceased to exist. Apart from the fact of being stolen almost verbatim from Creator/IsaacAsimov's short story "Gimmicks Three", if this "proves" anything, all it proves is that ''if'' time is a dimension in the sense that time travel is possible, ''and'' there exists a being as described, ''then'' the escape described is possible; it doesn't prove that time ''is'' such a dimension, much less that it must be the sole possibility.

to:

** Even better, people on both sides of the debate will pull this off. If your grandma didn't make a recovery then God doesn't exist, but you dismiss any cases where she did as 'lucky', while believers will take any recovery as unassailable proof of God, and any case without a recovery was God's will.
* Another instance of this is what is sometimes called "argument from mere analogy" -- the mistaken belief that because analogy is often used to ''illustrate'' proof, therefore analogy ''is'' proof.
** One example is used by those who believe that time is ''the'' fourth dimension, and that therefore no spatial fourth dimension is possible.[[note]]What Relativity actually says is that time is ''a'' fourth dimension -- at least for the purpose of Relativity calculations.[[/note]] They "prove" this by arguing that a being who is capable of time travel, and who finds itself trapped in a hollow cube, can escape by travelling to a time before the cube existed, or after it ceased to exist. Apart from the fact of being stolen almost verbatim from Creator/IsaacAsimov's short story "Gimmicks Three", if this "proves" anything, all it proves is that ''if'' time is a dimension in the sense that time travel is possible, ''and'' there exists a being as described, ''then'' the escape described is possible; it doesn't prove that time ''is'' such a dimension, much less that it must be the sole possibility.
proof.
6th Jan '16 12:28:38 PM case
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

:: Anecdotal Evidence is extremely prone to ConfirmationBias; when it doesn't fit one's viewpoint, it can be very easily dismissed as this trope. If it does fit one's viewpoint, it's a perfect example of that viewpoint applying to real people in the real world.
5th Mar '15 1:42:32 PM StFan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->"According to statistics, smoking causes you to die young. But my Grandmother Sally smoked like a chimney and lived until she was 95, so clearly the statistics are wrong."

to:

-->"According to statistics, smoking causes you to die young. But my Grandmother Sally smoked like a chimney and lived until she was 95, so clearly the statistics are wrong."
"


Added DiffLines:

* Seatbelt usage : many know of someone or have heard about someone who staunchly refuses to use seatbelts because they were involved or know someone who was involved in an accident where they got stuck because they couldn't undo the seatbelt, possibly suffering injuries or dying because of it, casually ignoring the many lives saved and injuries prevented by this device, and how seatbelt failures and defects are very rare.
27th Aug '14 8:12:10 AM Trueman001
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** One example is used by those who believe that time is ''the'' fourth dimension, and that therefore no spatial fourth dimension is possible. They "prove" this by arguing that a being who is capable of time travel, and who finds itself trapped in a hollow cube, can escape by travelling to a time before the cube existed, or after it ceased to exist. Apart from the fact of being stolen almost verbatim from Creator/IsaacAsimov's short story "Gimmicks Three", if this "proves" anything, all it proves is that ''if'' time is a dimension in the sense that time travel is possible, ''and'' there exists a being as described, ''then'' the escape described is possible; it doesn't prove that time ''is'' such a dimension, much less that it must be the sole possibility.

to:

** One example is used by those who believe that time is ''the'' fourth dimension, and that therefore no spatial fourth dimension is possible. [[note]]What Relativity actually says is that time is ''a'' fourth dimension -- at least for the purpose of Relativity calculations.[[/note]] They "prove" this by arguing that a being who is capable of time travel, and who finds itself trapped in a hollow cube, can escape by travelling to a time before the cube existed, or after it ceased to exist. Apart from the fact of being stolen almost verbatim from Creator/IsaacAsimov's short story "Gimmicks Three", if this "proves" anything, all it proves is that ''if'' time is a dimension in the sense that time travel is possible, ''and'' there exists a being as described, ''then'' the escape described is possible; it doesn't prove that time ''is'' such a dimension, much less that it must be the sole possibility.
27th Aug '14 8:08:45 AM Trueman001
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* Another instance of this is what is sometimes called "argument from mere analogy" -- the mistaken belief that because analogy is often used to ''illustrate'' proof, therefore analogy ''is'' proof.
** One example is used by those who believe that time is ''the'' fourth dimension, and that therefore no spatial fourth dimension is possible. They "prove" this by arguing that a being who is capable of time travel, and who finds itself trapped in a hollow cube, can escape by travelling to a time before the cube existed, or after it ceased to exist. Apart from the fact of being stolen almost verbatim from Creator/IsaacAsimov's short story "Gimmicks Three", if this "proves" anything, all it proves is that ''if'' time is a dimension in the sense that time travel is possible, ''and'' there exists a being as described, ''then'' the escape described is possible; it doesn't prove that time ''is'' such a dimension, much less that it must be the sole possibility.
5th Aug '14 8:08:36 PM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This is in fact a "proof" if the argument to the contrary is that something cannot exist. If there is a single data point that it does, then the original argument is invalid. (See below)



* When the anecdote is used to counter a hasty generalisation as a ''counter-example''; using the example above, claiming that grandma is a long-lived heavy smoker with no health problems doesn't prove that smoking is healthy, but it does disprove the claim that "All smokers get cancer and die young".

to:

* When the anecdote is used to counter a hasty generalisation universal claim as a ''counter-example''; using the example above, claiming that grandma is a long-lived heavy smoker with no health problems doesn't prove that smoking is healthy, but it does disprove the claim that "All smokers get cancer and die young".
young". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B.
15th Feb '14 11:33:31 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


:: Anecdotal evidence is basically saying "''X'' happened to me[=/=][[IHaveThisFriend someone I know]][=/=]someone I heard about" in a discussion and/or argument. If it's true that ''X'' happened to this person, it proves only that ''X'' is not impossible. It most certainly does not establish that ''X'' has ever happened more than once, or that ''X'' is common or pervasive - and that's what this fallacy about. The AnecdotalFallacy is using anecdotes instead of actual statistics and making general rules and grand claims off them, accurate picture of the reality of the matter be damned. Crops up often in heated arguments and amidst Hasty Generalisations, whereby an anecdote is not just used to illustrate or critique a general rule but as 'proof'[[note]] protip: it isn't [[/note]]. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".

to:

:: Anecdotal evidence is basically saying "''X'' happened to me[=/=][[IHaveThisFriend someone I know]][=/=]someone I heard about" in a discussion and/or argument. If it's true that ''X'' happened to this person, it proves only that ''X'' is not impossible. It most certainly does not establish that ''X'' has ever happened more than once, or that ''X'' is common or pervasive - and that's what this fallacy about. The AnecdotalFallacy is using anecdotes instead of actual statistics and making general rules and grand claims off them, accurate picture of the reality of the matter be damned. Crops up often in heated arguments and amidst Hasty Generalisations, whereby an anecdote is not just used to illustrate or critique a general rule but as 'proof'[[note]] protip: it isn't [[/note]].[[/note]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
15th Feb '14 11:32:20 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


:: Anecdotal evidence is basically "This happened to me[=/=][[IHaveThisFriend someone I know]][=/=]someone I heard about." Such evidence is largely useless as proof, since it is by nature doubtful in veracity. Furthermore, even if "it" did happen to someone the speaker knows, this does not establish that "it" is common or pervasive, which is the point the speaker is usually trying to argue. Typically used as the basis of a Hasty Generalisation, where a single, anecdotal "proof" is taken to prove or disprove a general rule. As scientists often say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".

to:

:: Anecdotal evidence is basically "This saying "''X'' happened to me[=/=][[IHaveThisFriend someone I know]][=/=]someone I heard about." Such evidence is largely useless as proof, since it is by nature doubtful about" in veracity. Furthermore, even if "it" did happen a discussion and/or argument. If it's true that ''X'' happened to someone the speaker knows, this person, it proves only that ''X'' is not impossible. It most certainly does not establish that "it" ''X'' has ever happened more than once, or that ''X'' is common or pervasive, which pervasive - and that's what this fallacy about. The AnecdotalFallacy is using anecdotes instead of actual statistics and making general rules and grand claims off them, accurate picture of the point reality of the speaker is usually trying to argue. Typically used as the basis of a matter be damned. Crops up often in heated arguments and amidst Hasty Generalisation, where a single, anecdotal "proof" Generalisations, whereby an anecdote is taken not just used to prove illustrate or disprove critique a general rule. rule but as 'proof'[[note]] protip: it isn't [[/note]]. As scientists often they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".



* A belief that some event was caused by the supernatural usually falls into this category. For example, if you asked {{God}} to heal your grandma, and she got better, that wouldn't prove God did it. While such an episode might be powerful to the individual, it is only a data point, and does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing, and get a dead grandma.

to:

* A belief that some event was caused by the supernatural usually falls into this category. For example, if you asked the Abrahamic-Monotheistic {{God}} to heal your grandma, and she got better, that wouldn't prove God did it. While such an episode might be powerful to the individual, it is only a data point, point and does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing, thing and get a dead grandma.grandmas.



* When the anecdote is used to counter a hasty generalisation as a ''counter-example''; using the example above, claiming that grandma is a long-lived heavy smoker with no health problems won't prove that smoking is healthy, but it can disprove the claim that "All smokers will get cancer".

to:

* When the anecdote is used to counter a hasty generalisation as a ''counter-example''; using the example above, claiming that grandma is a long-lived heavy smoker with no health problems won't doesn't prove that smoking is healthy, but it can does disprove the claim that "All smokers will get cancer".
cancer and die young".
6th Nov '13 5:37:05 PM h27kim
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This is in fact a "proof" if the argument to the contrary is that something cannot exist. If there is a single data point that it does, then the original argument is invalid.

to:

** This is in fact a "proof" if the argument to the contrary is that something cannot exist. If there is a single data point that it does, then the original argument is invalid. (See below)
6th Nov '13 5:36:29 PM h27kim
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** This is in fact a "proof" if the argument to the contrary is that something cannot exist. If there is a single data point that it does, then the original argument is invalid.
This list shows the last 10 events of 34. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.AnecdotalFallacy