Life Experience Versus Hard Data

[Jason Tandro]

Something that the nights recent events have made me wonder about.

What are your opinions regarding anecdotal evidence in debate? I know it's considered a taboo, but aren't we taught that there is no replacement for life experience and that most of our opinions are formed based on this?

Of course I understand the need to keep things clear in debate and that if discussion gets to intimate you can lose sight of the topic at hand.

Thoughts?

[SoulBlazerFan]

I think it depends. I guess you're probably referring to me and Raini's ancedotes from earlier.

Like I said, it depends, really, on how closely tied the anecdote is to the debate at hand, and whether or not if it actually provides any creedance to your argument.

Also, anecdotes can be used as propaganda- there is always someone whose willing to lie to just get his point across. It's like a used car salesman- he'll tell you he owned the same car for ten years and it ran like a dream just to make the sale.

[psychokind]

if the debate is about something irrational, anecdotes can be useful. especially if you're an expert. if there's the possibility for existing facts, only they count.

[Manibrandr System]

The experiences of many speak louder about the truth than the experiences of one.

[chicken]

Valerie Valens wrote:

The experiences of many speak louder about the truth than the experiences of one.

oh god, i hate to do this, but... oh well

no, i think you are wrong on that one. just because many say something it doesnt necessarily mean that that's true too. like, if there are a lot of laymen who are certain about a fact and one expert, who really knows better... well, HE is right and not ALL the others.

[Manibrandr System]

Well we ARE talking about experiences here and what it says abut the situation.

[Freedan]

People tend to tilt anecdotes in their favour, to make themselves sound right.

If anecdotes are all a person has, and two people tell opposing sides of the same story (in which they're right and the other guy is wrong), then who's actually right? Neither of them has proof of what they're saying, they're both just telling a story.

I could tell any story and exaggerate the truth to varying degrees to make myself sound good. Could someone prove me wrong? It's my story, and there's no evidence to refute. I'm just saying "this happened to me".

You know how all those chain letters that promise $245 for forwarding it each time always start off with "my friend is a lawyer, and he says it works. He made $14,850."? It's like that.

Using personal anecdotes in a debate should only be done if you have some way of proving it happened.

[Jason Tandro]

I'm in two minds about the whole thing. On the one hand an argument comprised entirely of anecdotal evidence will sway few, but at the same time we shouldn't shut it out completely.

And Valerie, your statement is a little confusing to me. Do you mean that the common shared experiences of many take precedence over the individual experiences themselves or that they are more important than individual counter-arguments? Or some combination of both?

[EverPhoenix]

i think personal experiences should be grounds for learning for oneself, and not for argument's sake. what you perceive from one experience might be completely different from what someone else would perceive. therefore, i think that 'life experience' is not really valid material for arguing a general case. if it is specific (relating to you) then by all means

[tay120n64]

I second what EP said. Personal experiences are really only good for developing oneself, with the exception of experiences which are intentional and monitored scientifically. The latter could be used as evidence within a discussion, but the latter can also be classified as hard evidence, therefore separating it from personal experiences and essentially making everything I just said rather redundant.

Regarding using anecdotes in a debate, I would say that they have no place. However, a discussion is a different story entirely, as the idea is not to reach a definite point, but rather to diversify one's mind by bringing forth as many ideals as possible.

So it depends, I suppose.