Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 1,36 (click to see context) from:
[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/anecdotal_evidence.gif]]]]
->'''''Step 9:''' Use your opponents' words and actions against them. This is where you really get to have fun. In any crowd, there is always a radical somewhere who is on a special mission to reform the world and enlighten the ignorant masses.''
->''Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.''
->''But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.''
-->-- [[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf How to Write an Anti-Gay Tract in Fifteen Easy Steps]]
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 (which is not proven by the assertion alone), 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 anecdotal fallacy is using anecdotes instead of actual statistics and making general rules and grand claims off them, an 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
->"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."
As a rebuttal, [[DeadpanSnarker one might]] [[HypocriticalHumour simply point out]] that they met a man on the way home who said that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.
Anecdotal Evidence is extremely prone to ConfirmationBias; when it doesn't fit one's viewpoint, it can be very easily dismissed as this fallacy. If it does fit one's viewpoint, it's a perfect example of that viewpoint applying to real people in the real world.
!!! Examples:
* 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.
* 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 does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing and get dead grandmas. Indeed, this is a FalseCause fallacy.
* 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, analogy ''is'' proof.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't:
* When the question is whether people believe something is true rather than whether it is true.
* When the evidence presented is a thought experiment ("let's say I met someone who...") rather than a claim of proof.
* When the anecdote is used to argue that something is '' possible'': If someone says "No one can live more than a hundred years", the answer "My grandmother did!" isn't fallacious. Of course, one must consider whether the objector is telling the truth about their grandmother, but that becomes an issue of fact, not of the logic of the argument.
* Similarly, when the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
* Eyewitness testimony will often fall into the anecdotal category, since it's generally non-repeatable and can't be scientifically verified (although not always). While of course this can be wrong and isn't the best, it's still evidence. Cross-examination and other mechanisms are used in an attempt to check its problems.
* An anecdote being used to illustrate an argument. If somebody can show legitimate evidence that something happens often, and uses an anecdote purely as an example, there is no fallacy.
* When a sufficient number are collected to be statistically significant, such as while testing new drugs.
----
!!Examples:
* In the pilot episode of ''Series/MadMen'', the owners of the cigarette brand Lucky Strike come to the Sterling-Cooper office to discuss the then-recent discovery of the links between smoking and lung cancer by the medical community and the public relations nightmare this will inevitably present to the entire tobacco industry. Lee Garner Jr. mentions that smoking can't be dangerous because his grandfather (who died at 95) smoked his entire life.
----
->'''''Step 9:''' Use your opponents' words and actions against them. This is where you really get to have fun. In any crowd, there is always a radical somewhere who is on a special mission to reform the world and enlighten the ignorant masses.''
->''Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.''
->''But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.''
-->-- [[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf How to Write an Anti-Gay Tract in Fifteen Easy Steps]]
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 (which is not proven by the assertion alone), 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 anecdotal fallacy is using anecdotes instead of actual statistics and making general rules and grand claims off them, an 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
->"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."
As a rebuttal, [[DeadpanSnarker one might]] [[HypocriticalHumour simply point out]] that they met a man on the way home who said that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.
Anecdotal Evidence is extremely prone to ConfirmationBias; when it doesn't fit one's viewpoint, it can be very easily dismissed as this fallacy. If it does fit one's viewpoint, it's a perfect example of that viewpoint applying to real people in the real world.
!!! Examples:
* 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.
* 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 does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing and get dead grandmas. Indeed, this is a FalseCause fallacy.
* 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, analogy ''is'' proof.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't:
* When the question is whether people believe something is true rather than whether it is true.
* When the evidence presented is a thought experiment ("let's say I met someone who...") rather than a claim of proof.
* When the anecdote is used to argue that something is '' possible'': If someone says "No one can live more than a hundred years", the answer "My grandmother did!" isn't fallacious. Of course, one must consider whether the objector is telling the truth about their grandmother, but that becomes an issue of fact, not of the logic of the argument.
* Similarly, when the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
* Eyewitness testimony will often fall into the anecdotal category, since it's generally non-repeatable and can't be scientifically verified (although not always). While of course this can be wrong and isn't the best, it's still evidence. Cross-examination and other mechanisms are used in an attempt to check its problems.
* An anecdote being used to illustrate an argument. If somebody can show legitimate evidence that something happens often, and uses an anecdote purely as an example, there is no fallacy.
* When a sufficient number are collected to be statistically significant, such as while testing new drugs.
----
!!Examples:
* In the pilot episode of ''Series/MadMen'', the owners of the cigarette brand Lucky Strike come to the Sterling-Cooper office to discuss the then-recent discovery of the links between smoking and lung cancer by the medical community and the public relations nightmare this will inevitably present to the entire tobacco industry. Lee Garner Jr. mentions that smoking can't be dangerous because his grandfather (who died at 95) smoked his entire life.
----
to:
->'''''Step 9:''' Use your opponents' words and actions against them. This is where you really get to have fun. In any crowd, there is always a radical somewhere who is on a special mission to reform the world and enlighten the ignorant masses.''
->''Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.''
->''But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.''
-->-- [[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf How to Write an Anti-Gay Tract in Fifteen Easy Steps]]
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 (which is not proven by the assertion alone), 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 anecdotal fallacy is using anecdotes instead of actual statistics and making general rules and grand claims off them, an 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
->"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."
As a rebuttal, [[DeadpanSnarker one might]] [[HypocriticalHumour simply point out]] that they met a man on the way home who said that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.
Anecdotal Evidence is extremely prone to ConfirmationBias; when it doesn't fit one's viewpoint, it can be very easily dismissed as this fallacy. If it does fit one's viewpoint, it's a perfect example of that viewpoint applying to real people in the real world.
!!! Examples:
* 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.
* 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 does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing and get dead grandmas. Indeed, this is a FalseCause fallacy.
* 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, analogy ''is'' proof.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't:
* When the question is whether people believe something is true rather than whether it is true.
* When the evidence presented is a thought experiment ("let's say I met someone who...") rather than a claim of proof.
* When the anecdote is used to argue that something is '' possible'': If someone says "No one can live more than a hundred years", the answer "My grandmother did!" isn't fallacious. Of course, one must consider whether the objector is telling the truth about their grandmother, but that becomes an issue of fact, not of the logic of the argument.
* Similarly, when the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
* Eyewitness testimony will often fall into the anecdotal category, since it's generally non-repeatable and can't be scientifically verified (although not always). While of course this can be wrong and isn't the best, it's still evidence. Cross-examination and other mechanisms are used in an attempt to check its problems.
* An anecdote being used to illustrate an argument. If somebody can show legitimate evidence that something happens often, and uses an anecdote purely as an example, there is no fallacy.
* When a sufficient number are collected to be statistically significant, such as while testing new drugs.
----
!!Examples:
* In the pilot episode of ''Series/MadMen'', the owners of the cigarette brand Lucky Strike come to the Sterling-Cooper office to discuss the then-recent discovery of the links between smoking and lung cancer by the medical community and the public relations nightmare this will inevitably present to the entire tobacco industry. Lee Garner Jr. mentions that smoking can't be dangerous because his grandfather (who died at 95) smoked his entire life.
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,7 (click to see context) from:
->'''Step 9: Use your opponents’ words and actions against them.''' This is where you really get to have fun. In any crowd, there is always a radical somewhere who is on a special mission to reform the world and enlighten the ignorant masses.
->Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.
->But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.
->Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.
->But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.
to:
->Fortunately,
->''Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up
->But
->''But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8,9 (click to see context) from:
-->--[[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf How to Write an Anti-Gay Tract in Fifteen Easy Steps]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/anecdotal_evidence.gif]]]]
Changed line(s) 8,13 (click to see context) from:
[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/anecdotal_evidence.gif]]]]
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 (which is not proven by the assertion alone), 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 anecdotal fallacy 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
->"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."
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 (which is not proven by the assertion alone), 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 anecdotal fallacy 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
->"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
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
->'''Step 9: Use your opponents’ words and actions against them.''' This is where you really get to have fun. In any crowd, there is always a radical somewhere who is on a special mission to reform the world and enlighten the ignorant masses.
->Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.
->But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.
-->--[[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf How to Write an Anti-Gay Tract in Fifteen Easy Steps]]
->Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.
->But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for ''everyone''. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.
-->--[[http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf How to Write an Anti-Gay Tract in Fifteen Easy Steps]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[quoteright:350:[[Webcomic/SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/anecdotal_evidence.gif]]]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
----
!!Examples:
* In the pilot episode of ''Series/MadMen'', the owners of the cigarette brand Lucky Strike come to the Sterling-Cooper office to discuss the then-recent discovery of the links between smoking and lung cancer by the medical community and the public relations nightmare this will inevitably present to the entire tobacco industry. Lee Garner Jr. mentions that smoking can't be dangerous because his grandfather (who died at 95) smoked his entire life.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* When the anecdote is used to argue that something is '' possible'': If someone says "No one can live more than a hundred years", the answer "My grandmother did!" isn' t fallacious. Of course, one must consider whether the objector is telling the truth about their grandmother, but that becomes an issue of fact, not of the logic of the argument.
to:
* When the anecdote is used to argue that something is '' possible'': If someone says "No one can live more than a hundred years", the answer "My grandmother did!" isn' t isn't fallacious. Of course, one must consider whether the objector is telling the truth about their grandmother, but that becomes an issue of fact, not of the logic of the argument.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* When the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
to:
* When the anecdote is used to argue that something is '' possible'': If someone says "No one can live more than a hundred years", the answer "My grandmother did!" isn' t fallacious. Of course, one must consider whether the objector is telling the truth about their grandmother, but that becomes an issue of fact, not of the logic of the argument.
* Similarly, when the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
* Similarly, when the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
-->"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:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* When a sufficient number are collected to be statistically significant, such as while testing new drugs.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* An anecdote being used to illustrate an argument. If somebody can show legitimate evidence that something happens often, and uses an anecdote purely as an example, there is no fallacy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 18 (click to see context) from:
* Eyewitness testimony will often fall into the anecdotal category, since it's generally non-repeatable and can't be scientifically verified (although not always). While of course this can be wrong and isn't the best, it's still evidence.
to:
* Eyewitness testimony will often fall into the anecdotal category, since it's generally non-repeatable and can't be scientifically verified (although not always). While of course this can be wrong and isn't the best, it's still evidence. Cross-examination and other mechanisms are used in an attempt to check its problems.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
* When the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
to:
* When the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B. That said, the maxim "exceptional "extraordinary claims require exceptional extraordinary evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
* Eyewitness testimony will often fall into the anecdotal category, since it's generally non-repeatable and can't be scientifically verified (although not always). While of course this can be wrong and isn't the best, it's still evidence.
* Eyewitness testimony will often fall into the anecdotal category, since it's generally non-repeatable and can't be scientifically verified (although not always). While of course this can be wrong and isn't the best, it's still evidence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
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 anecdotal fallacy 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]] in itself. 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, person (which is not proven by the assertion alone), 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 anecdotal fallacy 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
Changed line(s) 5,8 (click to see context) from:
:: As a rebuttal, [[DeadpanSnarker one might]] [[HypocriticalHumour simply point out]] that they met a man on the way home who said that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.
:: 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.
:: 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.
to:
Changed line(s) 10,14 (click to see context) from:
* 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.
* 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 and does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing and get dead grandmas.
* 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.
* Proponents and users of corporal punishment against children respond to scientific data and research with this. They'll claim that they themselves were spanked for doing X and never ever did X again out of fear of being spanked again (with "X" being acts like lying, stealing, disobeying a direct order, sneaking out of the home, etc).
* 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 and does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing and get dead grandmas.
* 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.
* Proponents and users of corporal punishment against children respond to scientific data and research with this. They'll claim that they themselves were spanked for doing X and never ever did X again out of fear of being spanked again (with "X" being acts like lying, stealing, disobeying a direct order, sneaking out of the home, etc).
to:
* Seatbelt usage : 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.
* 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, itis only a data point and does not ''prove'' anything. A hundred other people might ask for the same thing and get dead grandmas.
grandmas. Indeed, this is a FalseCause fallacy.
* 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.
* Proponents and users of corporal punishment against children respond to scientific data and research with this. They'll claim that they themselves were spanked for doing X and never ever did X again out of fear of being spanked again (with "X" being acts like lying, stealing, disobeying a direct order, sneaking out of the home, etc).
* 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
* 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,
Added DiffLines:
* When the evidence presented is a thought experiment ("let's say I met someone who...") rather than a claim of proof.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
* When the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B.
to:
* When the anecdote is used to counter a 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". A universal claim (All A are B) is disproven by the existence of even one case where A is not B.
B. That said, the maxim "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" applies here, and if the only evidence that this old person who smokes ''exists'' is that the opponent asserts that she does, this is not a particularly compelling counterpoint.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTE IS NOT DATA ARRGH
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
* When a lot of anecdotes have been collected, and they are consistent. This isn't a fallacy; it's inductive reasoning. Refusing to come to a conclusion based on repeated anecdotes is the fallacy of slothful induction, also known as poor pattern recognition. When Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown again and again, but he keeps trusting her, he isn't avoiding the anecdotal fallacy; he's being a fool.
to:
* When a lot of anecdotes have been collected, and they are consistent. This isn't a fallacy; it's inductive reasoning. Refusing to come to a conclusion based on repeated anecdotes is the fallacy of slothful induction, also known as poor pattern recognition. When Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown again and again, but he keeps trusting her, he isn't avoiding the anecdotal fallacy; he's being a fool.question is whether people believe something is true rather than whether it is true.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Data points need to be facts, anecdotes are dubiously factual, an anecdote cannot be a data point
Deleted line(s) 16 (click to see context) :
* When the anecdote is offered as a data point, not ''proof''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
not sure why this is bolded
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
:: 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 anecdotal fallacy 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
:: 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]] in itself. 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 anecdotal fallacy 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]] in itself. As they say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
to:
* Proponents and users of corporal punishment against children respond to scientific data and research with this. They'll claim that they themselves were spanked for doing X and never ever did X again out of fear of being spanked again (with "X" being acts like lying, stealing, disobeying a direct order, sneaking out of the home, etc).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12,15 (click to see context) from:
** 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.
* 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:
** 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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3,4 (click to see context) from:
-->"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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 11,12 (click to see context) from:
** 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.
