Title: Anecdotal Information vs. Scientific Data in the Courtroom | The Truth About Forensic Science
Headings: Anecdotal Information vs. Scientific Data in the Courtroom
Anecdotal Information vs. Scientific Data in the Courtroom
On April 13, 2010, in In The Courtroom, by Justin J. McShane
Based upon my training, knowledge and experience, (insert alleged expert opinion)
Justin J. McShane

Content: It was referred to in epistemology as post hoc ergo propter hoc. Loosely it is translated as “It happened after therefore it was caused by”. Barry Beyerstein perhaps explained it the best when he wrote, “anecdotal evidence leads us to conclusions that we wish to be true, not conclusions that actually are true.” So anecdotes can be worse than worthless, they can be misleading. Anecdotal evidence is unreliable because it depends upon the accurate perception of the witness (es), often in a situation where the event was unexpected or unusual; it is dependent upon subjective memory, which has been overwhelmingly demonstrated to be extremely error prone and subject to a host of flaws; and it cannot account for the random vagaries of a chaotic world. The inability of forensic scientists is acknowledge this is catastrophic and perhaps systemic. It may be do to the large scale lack of credentialed scientists in forensic science today . It must be acknowledged that one’s own experiences are anecdotal too (or maybe the appropriate phrase is “especially anecdotal”).