Randi accepts anecdotal evidence?

[Starrman]

I've re-read it a few times, but the most recent commentarty seems to take at face-value an e-mail from someone claiming they got an infection from a JOG surgery.

Did I miss something that would validate this as true?

I think JOG is a dangerous nut-ball, but we certainly wouldn't accept a similar e-mail from patient claiming to be cured, without some kind of corroboration, would we?

Somebody educate me, please.

 

[Beady]

I think JOG is a dangerous nut-ball, but we certainly wouldn't accept a similar e-mail from patient claiming to be cured, without some kind of corroboration, would we?

I think you're right. I also think Randi is letting his human-ness show, despite his best efforts. It's always easy to accept untested the claims of someone who agrees with you.

 

[dmc]

Yes, the story is anecdotal. On the other hand...

• It's not making any extraordinary or paradigm-shifting claims, it's just reciting an incident that's well within the realm of possibility.
• It contains a number of details (dates, locations) that if necessary could be checked out and verified. Most anecdotes recounting paranormal experiences don’t.
• Consider the audience: Whenever I see any such item in this forum, I automatically assume that it’s to be taken for whatever it’s worth, but is not something I should change my worldview over (or build a legal case around). I don’t need that caveat spelled out for me every time. I’m guessing most of us here do the same.

I’m not a Randi apologist (he doesn’t need one), that’s just how this story struck me: interesting, plausible, but just another data point among many concerning JoG. Whether I accept or dismiss it doesn't change my opinion.

 

[Soapy Sam]

We at least recognise the account as anecdote, and accordingly rate it's value as evidence con . JoG.

If only the believers would see the same.

I suppose the difference has a lot to do with wanting to believe- just as we boast about the deal we got on our new car, because we don't want to think we were outsmarted by a good salesman.

 

[Marek]

It's not anecdotal evidence, it's a personal story. It's only anecdotal evidence if it's presented as evidence, which it's not.

 

[Beady]

It's not anecdotal evidence, it's a personal story. It's only anecdotal evidence if it's presented as evidence, which it's not.

An anecdote is a story, or an "account," as the dictionary has it. When an anecdote is presented as evidence, it must be taken into account the same as any other evidence. In any kind of legal proceeding, anecdotes and statements must be taken at face value unless contradictory evidence exists.

 

[gnome]

An anecdote is a story, or an "account," as the dictionary has it. When an anecdote is presented as evidence, it must be taken into account the same as any other evidence. In any kind of legal proceeding, anecdotes and statements must be taken at face value unless contradictory evidence exists.

I don't believe this is true. Especially in criminal proceedings, but I believe also in civil proceedings, personal accounts are not taken as facts unless backed up by corroborating evidence... independent witnesses, for example, in the cases where no empirical evidence is available.

 

[rwguinn]

Yes, the story is anecdotal. On the other hand...

• It's not making any extraordinary or paradigm-shifting claims, it's just reciting an incident that's well within the realm of possibility.
• It contains a number of details (dates, locations) that if necessary could be checked out and verified. Most anecdotes recounting paranormal experiences don’t.
• Consider the audience: Whenever I see any such item in this forum, I automatically assume that it’s to be taken for whatever it’s worth, but is not something I should change my worldview over (or build a legal case around). I don’t need that caveat spelled out for me every time. I’m guessing most of us here do the same.

I’m not a Randi apologist (he doesn’t need one), that’s just how this story struck me: interesting, plausible, but just another data point among many concerning JoG. Whether I accept or dismiss it doesn't change my opinion.

All you say is true. The point was and is well-made, however. Had a woo made the same type of statement, including dates which could be checked out, the chortlers on these boards would be all over them.
This is the J Randi Educational Foundation, and the audience is myriad. Many undecideds and potential critical thinkers read the commentary.
From my viewpoint, engaging in the tactic of quoting a single, undocumented disgruntled customer is just that.
You don't know the motivation, or even the veracity, of the "customer". It is totally out-of-character from what we expect from Mr. Randi
As many of you point out: Give us sources. The plural of anecdote is not Data.

 

[Dr. Imago]

While I agree, in essence, with the fact that this is an anecdoctal account of a patient who was harmed, I see it as equally valid in refuting other anecdotal information presented in support of JoG. It is no more or less valid than any other report, but it does carry as much weight as those who say they were helped by JoG - i.e., very little.

Therefore, I don't find too much fault with Mr. Randi posting it. After all, he does provide this disclaimer (my underlining and italicizing for emphasis):

Briefly: we now find that all those hastily-scribbled "prescriptions" and instructions to drink "holy water" bring money into the pockets of this "healer," and I would bet that he gets a cut from the hotel and other "services," as well. Bear in mind that he also tells the victims how long they'll stay at that hotel. And, we learn here, he actually stitches up the incisions he makes. Also, infections do occur — serious ones, to judge from this account. The locals apparently know a lot about the farce. This information was available to the ABC-TV News investigating team. Why is it that they didn't learn this and reveal it?

I think the purpose of posting this anecdote is to primarily illustrate the failure of the ABC investigative team in fully doing their job and providing a balanced story. On their website mirror of the report nowhere do they even mention Mr. Randi's comments:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Primetime/story?id=482292&page=1

I think to get the crux of Mr. Randi's point here one has to read between the lines. If you're going to take anecdotal reports as evidence, you have to go all the way. In that regard, the subtle reductio ad absurdum Mr. Randi uses here becomes completely fair game.

Of course, I realize that I may be giving him more of the benefit of the doubt than maybe he should get. But, I'm just not going to hold him to a higher standard in this instance; based on the lopsided way this JoG hokum was presented by ABC, he doesn't deserve to be.

-TT

(edit: typos/bad grammar)

 

[Beady]

I don't believe this is true. Especially in criminal proceedings, but I believe also in civil proceedings, personal accounts are not taken as facts unless backed up by corroborating evidence... independent witnesses, for example, in the cases where no empirical evidence is available.

You are completely wrong. My statement was taken almost verbatim from existing law. I work with Federal law every day. In any legal procedings, including government forms and applications and any other situation where you have to swear or attest to the truthfulness of your statements (such as tax forms, job applications, etc), your statement is taken at face value until and unless contradictory evidence is introduced.

 

[rwguinn]

You are completely wrong. My statement was taken almost verbatim from existing law. I work with Federal law every day. In any legal procedings, including government forms and applications and any other situation where you have to swear or attest to the truthfulness of your statements (such as tax forms, job applications, etc), your statement is taken at face value until and unless contradictory evidence is introduced.

Absolutely. The key word here is "Sworn" or "attested". in the case of the "involuntary surgery" there is neither. I also wonder why Mr. Randi did not take exception to the "paralyzed" statement, as well as the other bizzare and seemingly "paranormal" incidents noted by this individual.
Seems a bit strange.
And, yes, I do hold Mr. Randi to a higher standard than the woo's. I know that they are full of previously digested alfalfa. I don't want to believe he is.

 

[gnome]

You are completely wrong. My statement was taken almost verbatim from existing law. I work with Federal law every day. In any legal procedings, including government forms and applications and any other situation where you have to swear or attest to the truthfulness of your statements (such as tax forms, job applications, etc), your statement is taken at face value until and unless contradictory evidence is introduced.

I may be thinking of what happens in court... and it is quite possible I'm mistaken... maybe I'm only right here in burden-of-proof situations.

 

[Beady]

I may be thinking of what happens in court... and it is quite possible I'm mistaken... maybe I'm only right here in burden-of-proof situations.

You forget that in any legal setting, especially in court, you are under oath to tell the truth. Therefore, anything you say is presumed to be true, to the best of your knowledge. It may turn out that your information is incorrect, but the presumption is that you believe it to be true.

 

[Beady]

Absolutely. The key word here is "Sworn" or "attested". in the case of the "involuntary surgery" there is neither.

I figure it's even more important to obey the rules of evidence in those settings where there is no formal enforcement of the rules. The other guy may cheat, but if we don't abide by the rules, ourselves, I don't see the difference between "them" and "us."

 

[drkitten]

You forget that in any legal setting, especially in court, you are under oath to tell the truth. Therefore, anything you say is presumed to be true, to the best of your knowledge.

This is simply a misstatement, and you know it. One of the elementary techniques that any lawyer learns, for example, is cross-examination as to credibility. The idea is that if I can plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the jury and/or judge about the inherent credibility of the witness, they are free to disregard anything and everything that was said, even if it wasn't refuted directly.

And, of course, the judge/jury are also at liberty to completely disregard anything the witness says, even without explicit evidence on the part of the lawyer.

There is similarly no "presumption of truth" in, as you put it "in any legal procedings, including government forms and applications and any other situation where you have to swear or attest to the truthfulness of your statements (such as tax forms, job applications, etc)." If that were the case, the government wouldn't be able to check on job references (since they would be presumed to be true), or to verify depositions against physical evidence (since the depositions are presumed to be true).

 

[rwguinn]

boy,
there's a tangent if I ever saw one. The topic is Randi accepting ancedotal "evidence".
Putting up straw men is bad form. We are not addressing this as a court of law. The question remains, Do critical thinkers resort to Woo-woo tactics?

Roger

 

[Beady]

This is simply a misstatement, and you know it.

You have just accused me of saying something that I know not to be the truth. That is, you have accused me of lying. Now it's up to you to prove that I am lying.

One of the elementary techniques that any lawyer learns, for example, is cross-examination as to credibility. The idea is that if I can plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the jury and/or judge about the inherent credibility of the witness, they are free to disregard anything and everything that was said, even if it wasn't refuted directly.

Yes, but in order to do that, you have to introduce contradictory evidence. Simply stating that someone is wrong or lying is not contradictory evidence, and does not impeach credibility. Neither does the presence of contradictory evidence indicate that the witness is lying. See, for example, your own accusation, above; it is an assertion without corroborative evidence.

There is similarly no "presumption of truth" in, as you put it "in any legal procedings, including government forms and applications and any other situation where you have to swear or attest to the truthfulness of your statements (such as tax forms, job applications, etc)."

Apparently you have never read the bottom of an OF-612 (Federal job application form), state or Federal tax form, etc.

If that were the case, the government wouldn't be able to check on job references (since they would be presumed to be true), or to verify depositions against physical evidence (since the depositions are presumed to be true).

You really haven't read the bottoms of those forms, have you? And I also have a hunch that you've never taken an oath to tell the truth. When the Government checks references, etc, it is not checking whether you are lying, it is checking whether your statements are accurate. There's a difference.

For example, there is a substantive difference between someone being mistaken, and knowingly making a mistatement. If you claim to know this, there's no way you can claim not to have called me a liar.

 

[Beady]

there's a tangent if I ever saw one. The topic is Randi accepting ancedotal "evidence".
Putting up straw men is bad form. We are not addressing this as a court of law.

This is neither a tangent nor a strawman. To repeat: "It's even more important to obey the rules of evidence in those settings where there is no formal enforcement of the rules. The other guy may cheat, but if we don't abide by the rules, ourselves, I don't see the difference between "them" and "us.""

The question remains, Do critical thinkers resort to Woo-woo tactics?

When we don't obey the rules, yes. That is exactly my point.

 

[rwguinn]

Um...er...Hey, Beady:
We are on the same side... I was refering to the tangent that drkitten was taking to distract us from the issue at hand...
By making an issue of the veracity of a sworn or attested statment, we lose sight of the fact that the statement (s) at issue were neither.

Roger

 

[Beady]

Um...er...Hey, Beady:
We are on the same side... I was refering to the tangent that drkitten was taking to distract us from the issue at hand...
By making an issue of the veracity of a sworn or attested statment, we lose sight of the fact that the statement (s) at issue were neither.

Roger

Sorry 'bout that. You didn't quote or cite who you were responding to, though, so it was rather ambiguous who and what you were taking issue with.