Robert McLuhan on Anecdotal Evidence
Posted by alanborky at 20:17, 06 Jan 2012I've just been reading Robert McLuhan's article Anecdotal Evidence in EdgeScience #9.
In his piece McLuhan makes the observation "the skeptic’s most popular arguments is that anecdotal evidence can’t be relied on".
The problem with that particular skeptical position is it misses the point ALL EVIDENCE IS ANECDOTAL.
Take the formerly acclaimed publications of South Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk and social psychologist Diederik Stapel, to name but two of several possible examples.
We only ever had Hwang and Stapel's words for it - their anecdotes - they'd done any of the work they claimed all along but for quite a while that was good enough...until other parties stepped in to denounce them.
The thing is their downfall was acclaimed as proof of the power of science but the truth is we only have the anecdotal evidence of the students their professors did or didn't do the things they claim and we only have the word of the investigators they actualy established the fraud they claimed to establish. Put it this way if Hwang'd been a North Korean scientist most of us wouldn't have much difficulty imagining he'd been framed by the Kim Jong-il regime.
Even all the hatred directed at those who dare to question whether we landed on the moon - and I take the working position we did - misses the point only the astronauts know for certain; and if someone like Paul MacCartney can observe how he still suddenly realises from time to time with a shock, hey, I'm that bloke from the Beatles, did we really do all those thing? Then surely even Neil Armstrong may on occasions gaze up in awe at the moon and wonder did we really land on that thing or is the life I subsequently led really a dream induced by a lack of oxygen as I lie dying in the lunar module after it failed to attain orbit? (As a kid my younger brother nearly bled to death due to falling into a glass cabinet while I was in charge and four decades later I still periodically stop breathing for a moment as I struggle to recall whether I really did manage to save him?).
My point being the scientific method is only the scientific method when we verify for ourselves the anecdotal claims of others.
And even then, when we do, all we can give others is an anecdote (no matter how jazzily and scientifically it's decked out in the latest technobabble) telling how we did so, leaving them to decide whether it inspires them to verify it too.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- alanborky's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
28 September 2005
13 weeks 1 day
Excellent comments Alan. I linked to your piece on a couple of my blogs.
The Orange Orb
http://orangeorb.blogspot.com
18 September 2007
3 hours 54 min
I recently locked horns with an archaeologist and dedicated skeptic on this very subject. I had submitted as evidence of the paranormal some of those really excellent shows from Paranormal Witness series - especially the one called "Rain Man" which includes lots of testimony from police officers who all saw the same "physically impossible" paranormal phenomena at the same time. I also submitted a couple of shows from the
Psychic Detective" series which also included testimony from police officers concerning the astonishingly accurate help they were getting from certain forensic psychics. It did not matter who reported what even if it was multiple simultaneous witnesses. It was still just "anecdote." I started to realize that even if this skeptic saw these things with his own eyes he would still rationalize it as being an anecdote. It didn't matter what evidence was presented to him. If his worldview was that such things were impossible, and his ego was heavily wrapped up in the position he had staked out for himself long ago then no amount of evidence was going to change his mind. Actually, I was not trying to "change his mind" - only trying to keep it open to the possibilities, but he would not countenace even the slightest hint that his entrenched position might be weak or open to discussion. That is what so dumbfounds me about some of the fundamentalist skeptics - their egos are so huge, fragile and immature.
8 August 2010
18 weeks 5 days
Borky is plainly wrong. He gives the examples of disgraced stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk and discredited social psychologist Diederik Stapel:
> their downfall was acclaimed as proof of the power of science but the truth is we only have the anecdotal evidence of the students their professors did or didn't do the things they claim and we only have the word of the investigators they actualy established the fraud they claimed to establish.
A quick look at Wikipedia shows Woo-suk was convincted in court of embezzlement and bioethical violations. That is not playing at investigating. Also, Woo-suk admitted to some academic misbehaviour, but mainly claimed ignorance of his own work or evoked conspiracies to defend himself (both quite damning).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk
Stapel admitted committing fraud -- plain and simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_St...
Borky totally mischaracterises the facts. He also avoids the most obvious check on academic fraud: reproducibility. No matter what Woo-suk claimed to do, if no other lab could reproduce his findings, science would have discarded them.
Borky's argument only makes sense when he leaves out the most important part of science.
Not a job well done! Tsk, tsk!
28 September 2005
13 weeks 1 day
Ha, Terry, you got here before I did. I was going to share the comments you left at Frame 352, curious what borky's response is:
The comment quoted is a good one, by itself, no matter who said it.
The Orange Orb
http://orangeorb.blogspot.com