Thread: Stupidity of Anecdotal Reasoning

I agree.

Especially when it comes to words that are very ambiguous, I just tell people they should word what they mean a bit more clear. If a person I know is a smart atheist says that some kinds of music give him a 'spiritual, transcending feeling', he of course doesn't actually believe in stuff like souls and magical fairy-worlds, but I just can stand that people keep that kind of stuff alive.

Actually, that might be a different, but not all that different, case. Main point I want to stress is that people may word what they think however they want it, but they should be aware of what they actually mean, otherwise you are just mumbling random words. And it's confusing as shit.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Examples:
+ A friend in need is a friend indeed.
+ A womens work is never done.
+ The grass is always greener on the other side.
+ Absences makes the heart grow fonder.
+ After a storm comes a calm
Examples:
+ The mirror can only shine the shadow into the eye of the beholder.
+ When the clouds float, they move at a speed equal to you.
+ Only you can feel the steps as you move.
+ A hand in the palm is a heart in the calm.

Practical example:
Mother and Child:
C: Betty went to the store, so I did to.
M: If Betty jumped off a bridge, would you to?
C: ...No.
M: Then don't follow her everywhere.

The mother is obviously intending that the child think for themself, but they don't say so. Let's consider if Betty jumped off a bridge that was only 6 feet high and away from pedophile rapists; obviously the mother would then want her to jump off the bridge, so how is this anecdotal reasoning fair if at all reasonable?

What do you think...?

~

I don't agree, I think the bridge example and the other examples (except the woman's work thing, I don't really get why it is gender specific there). are accurate. The ones you made up, clouds and etc, make no sense.

None of these statements include the premise "what is stated next is always true."

The bridge example, it isn't about don't jump off a bridge ever, and it isn't about don't do what others do. It is about don't use other people as an excuse to follow their example. I.E. jump off the bridge to escape the "pedophile rapists," not because the other girl did it.

Originally Posted by Sandform

"pedophile rapists,"

But why couldn't the mom just say: "think for yourself, do thing only because other people do it, but because you want to do it."

Originally Posted by Neruo

[/IMG]



But why couldn't the mom just say: "think for yourself, do thing only because other people do it, but because you want to do it."

Because "think for yourself" doesn't click together in a little kids head.

Examples are sometimes easier to understand than abstract statements of ideals.


Also he sayyd pedo rapists f1rst

Originally Posted by Sandform

I don't agree, I think the bridge example and the other examples (except the woman's work thing, I don't really get why it is gender specific there). are accurate. The ones you made up, clouds and etc, make no sense.

Even if it is true, they are not offering the reasoning or validity. Just alone, they prove nothing. The mistake is in believing that an anecdote alone proves itself.

None of these statements include the premise "what is stated next is always true."
The bridge example, it isn't about don't jump off a bridge ever, and it isn't about don't do what others do. It is about don't use other people as an excuse to follow their example. I.E. jump off the bridge to escape the "pedophile rapists," not because the other girl did it.

See what you did though? The example isn't literally about jumping off a bridge, it has reasoning about individuality and self-reason. Notice that you had to explain the reasoning behind it..? This is because, alone, the anecdote serves no purpose and leaves the child in an irrational abyss.

Originally Posted by Neruo

But why couldn't the mom just say: "think for yourself, do thing only because other people do it, but because you want to do it."

Exactly my point.

[quote]
Because "think for yourself" doesn't click together in a little kids head.

Examples are sometimes easier to understand than abstract statements of ideals.
[/qupte]

Analogies and metaphors are a good starting point, but alone serve only to confuse the child. How many times do we hear of children lost in their parents reasoning by only stating this anecdote alone? It's a good starting point at best.

~

I agree with the OP, although just to nitpick, those aren't anecdotes (i.e. a story of someone's personal experience), just folk sayings. Both, however, are unreliable when being used to make a prediction or support a logical conclusion.

The anecdote problem is one that I encounter a lot in the study of psychology. It is especially prominent in introductory courses.
"No no, that can't be true at all, because my friend X does this instead."
"I don't buy that study, because one time I was in a similar situation and I did this."
Etc.
Many people fail to appreciate the probabilistic nature of behavioral research. Yes, I'm sure that your friend does do that, and I'm sure that you did do that, but that doesn't change the fact that the theory at hand tends to be true for a majority of people. You could probably think of an anecdote that goes either with or against any prediction or theory, but controlled studies on representative samples tell us a lot more about how most people tend to behave.

Getting closer to the topic at hand again - folk wisdom presents a similar problem.
Do "opposites attract?" Or do "birds of a feather flock together?"
Do "too many cooks spoil the broth?" Or do "many hands make light work?"
Does "absence make the heart grow fonder?" Or is it "out of sight, out of mind?"
Etc.
Folk wisdom can be invoked to explain away just about any imaginable behavior. So what is the predictive value of folk sayings, proverbs, etc? There is none. Once again, we should rely on scientific studies of behavior if we want to make informed predictions.

Originally Posted by DuB

I agree with the OP, although just to nitpick, those aren't anecdotes (i.e. a story of someone's personal experience), just folk sayings. Both, however, are unreliable when being used to make a prediction or support a logical conclusion.

My apology - I am trying to argue against proverbs and anecdotes.

Getting closer to the topic at hand again - folk wisdom presents a similar problem.
Do "opposites attract?" Or do "birds of a feather flock together?"
Do "too many cooks spoil the broth?" Or do "many hands make light work?"
Does "absence make the heart grow fonder?" Or is it "out of sight, out of mind?"
Etc.
Folk wisdom can be invoked to explain away just about any imaginable behavior. So what is the predictive value of folk sayings, proverbs, etc? There is none. Once again, we should rely on scientific studies of behavior if we want to make informed predictions.

Precisely.

~

No. Sentences that rhyme are true. Also, if a sentence is a quote by someone other than Hitler, the sentence is invariably true. This is especially true in internet signatures and profiles.

Metaphors can be used to give a deeper understanding. They can get past all the unwanted noise by directing the listener/reader to understand from a specific perspective.

Anecdotes are often used as metaphors.
They can also be useful to bypass certain connotations.

I certainly agree, well looking for my senior quote 75% of the quotes I came a crossed made no sense what so ever for me. People like to sound enlightening if they use a lot of complicated metaphors and word play to do it they come off as sounding all smart when the sayings have no logic to them, If I'm looking for a saying I want to to be not so obvious to most people but to actually be really logical, and have a really good point in it, I don't care how pretty it sounds.

And there are people who actually think heavily in these Anecdotes everyday, usualy highly spiritual people.

I always thought it was the calm before the storm...?

My two cents...

Some make sense, some are bullshit.

everything is made of shit lalala-lala

I agree with sandform

Even if it is true, they are not offering the reasoning or validity. Just alone, they prove nothing. The mistake is in believing that an anecdote alone proves itself.

I disagree, in the bridge example the mother is using reductio ad absurdum. Basically, the daughter is arguing that she needs to do what her friend does, and the mother is showing how that reason is faulty. So basically it just proof by contradiction.

Saying that you're wording is poor on the example. If the girl was arguing that she should go to the store and then her mother used the reasoning, then it would make sense. When somebody uses the bridge example, its normally when somebody is arguing do something because somebody else is.

Notice that you had to explain the reasoning behind it..? This is because, alone, the anecdote serves no purpose and leaves the child in an irrational abyss.

Not really. The mother reasoning is perfectly valid.

but alone serve only to confuse the child. How many times do we hear of children lost in their parents reasoning by only stating this anecdote alone? It's a good starting point at best

Have you actually got an evidence for you're claim, or is it just anecdotal?

Children need simplified situations, you can't just put a book on set theory or logic and expect the child to actually understand it. The mother did not confuse the girl, she showed that if you accept her reasoning, which is that we should do what the other girl does. Then she would have to accept the absurb situation where she walks off a bridge.

The point is that the mother shows that doing something because somebody else does is not valid reasoning.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I disagree, in the bridge example the mother is using reductio ad absurdum. Basically, the daughter is arguing that she needs to do what her friend does, and the mother is showing how that reason is faulty. So basically it just proof by contradiction.

Right, but the child ought to be offered the supporting reasoning than just the anecdote alone. Otherwise, it will only initially confuse the child and the child will have to figure out the reasoning themself. This is obviously where the parent fails.

Not really. The mother reasoning is perfectly valid.

It's not valid. It has no support and no premises, it is only a conclusion of a personal self-deduction from her, apparent, selfish reasoning that she refuses to offer her child.

Have you actually got an evidence for you're claim, or is it just anecdotal?

A good pun but here's how it works; the mother has a series of premises (or just one), but only offers the conclusion to the child leaving them confused on the reasoning behind the anecdote.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

It's not valid. It has no support and no premises, it is only a conclusion of a personal self-deduction from her, apparent, selfish reasoning that she refuses to offer her child.



A good pun but here's how it works; the mother has a series of premises (or just one), but only offers the conclusion to the child leaving them confused on the reasoning behind the anecdote.

~

Actually, the conversation starts with the child saying "but so and so did it!"

Then the parental figure might say, "bridge?"

Then the child is forced to give an answer. If it is no, then the parent has made the point. Just because X is doing X doesn't equate that you should do X. If it is yes, then the parent is forced to tell the child why that is absurd.

You're acting like someone just randomly says "blah blah" with nothing that provokes it.

Usually the conversation doesn't begin and end with "bridge." Furthermore it is a common saying and after the initial exposure to the saying and explanation, it is sufficient to reply with "bridge."

Right, but the child ought to be offered the supporting reasoning than just the anecdote alone. Otherwise, it will only initially confuse the child and the child will have to figure out the reasoning themself. This is obviously where the parent fails.

I disagree again. If a child is told how to reason and doesn't learn by itself, then its bad.

A child should be able to deduce the reason why herself, or see how her logic is flawed. Its kind of mathematics, if a person stands next to you and basically tells you the anwser instead of hints then you won't build up intuition.

It's not valid. It has no support and no premises, it is only a conclusion of a personal self-deduction from her, apparent, selfish reasoning that she refuses to offer her child.

No, the argument was to show a flae in the child argument. Hence all she had to do is accept the child premises then use it to derive a contradiction.

Say you said, all things that are blue are hot and then you use that to justify something. Then all I need to do is show something that is blue but not hot, hence you would see how you're logic is flawed.

In this case the mother except the childs premiese that the child did something because somebody else did, then shows how it is flawed. She did has not enter any new premises.

the mother has a series of premises (or just one), but only offers the conclusion to the child leaving them confused on the reasoning behind the anecdote.

I disagree, the mother herself provides a counter argument to the childs claim, hence showing the child she needs better reasoning. Again, you provided no evidence that anecdotal reasoning is bad.

I have not got any evidence that anecdotal reasoning is good, however I'm not claiming anything.

Playing devil's advocate can be a useful exercise, but I feel like you guys are quibbling over details rather than challenging the main idea.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I disagree again. If a child is told how to reason and doesn't learn by itself, then its bad.

The point of communication is for mutual development, learning, or teaching. I am not saying the child should be told how to reason, I am saying that the child should be given the support of the anecdote. As in all cases, the support ought to be given.

A child should be able to deduce the reason why herself, or see how her logic is flawed. Its kind of mathematics, if a person stands next to you and basically tells you the anwser instead of hints then you won't build up intuition.

The child should be able to but should not have to if the parent does their job as another human being by explaining their point. This way they can understand and agree with the conclusion with the given premises instead of struggling to find the premises that were left out.

It's not a matter of a question and answer like a test, it's a matter of teaching and communication. If I say to you, "The student ought to eventually teach the teacher" alone and without support, what are you left to assume what my point is? Even if that is intuitive, as many proverbs are, what about the first time the person hears it? The other person ought to at least discuss the reasoning as they are teaching the person, not testing them.

No, the argument was to show a flae in the child argument. Hence all she had to do is accept the child premises then use it to derive a contradiction.

Unfortunately, the concepts of formal logic don't come so natural to everyone. If someone is able to simply concede an argument to a single anecdote, then they ought to have already known the premises that contradict their original argument. Thus, there is need for explanation and teaching.

Say you said, all things that are blue are hot and then you use that to justify something. Then all I need to do is show something that is blue but not hot, hence you would see how you're logic is flawed.

This is an irrelevant tangent. Please stop.

I disagree, the mother herself provides a counter argument to the childs claim, hence showing the child she needs better reasoning. Again, you provided no evidence that anecdotal reasoning is bad.

I have not got any evidence that anecdotal reasoning is good, however I'm not claiming anything.

You don't even see it yourself. This is ridiculously funny actually.

Think about it, I am saying, "Anecdotal reasoning is foolish" or is incomplete.. which, is inteself, an anecdote. I do follow up with my reasoning, but notice I am obliged to explain my point rather than pretentiously leaving you to hang?

Therein lies my point.

Or should I just say:
"The answers lie within the anecdotal mirror."

~