On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:54:09 -0400, Warp wrote:

> 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.

I think that's a perceptual thing, honestly.  ie, eyewitness testimony is 
perceived to be the highest form of evidence, but the reality is that 
it's not.

That's easily demonstrable by taking any court case where more than one 
eyewitness produces a differing set of events.  Who do you believe if 
they both can't be right?

What is the highest form of evidence is something that can be proven to 
be true.  An eyewitness can say that a suspect did shoot a victim, but if 
there's no weapon, no gunshot residue on the suspect's hands/clothes, and 
a rock solid alibi for the suspect not being at the scene of the crime 
(say, they were in jail at the time), then clearly the eyewitness 
testimony isn't evidence of anything other than that the eyewitness isn't 
credible.

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

I would disagree with that based on what I wrote above. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message