Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Something of an oxymoron there; anecdotes do not make for (scientific) 
> *evidence*.  This is something that I've had to explain to my own 
> management a few times:  Two people saying a training course is bad (or 
> good) isn't the basis for doing (or not doing) a rewrite of the course.  
> A statistically large enough sample of those who have used the materials 
> *is*.

  It's scary that eyewitness testimony is the *highest* form of evidence in
most courts of law, even though eyewitness testimony is more or less the
same thing as anecdotal evidence.

  For some reason most people also keep anecdotal evidence in high regard,
up to it being more credible than actual physical tests.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message