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: In other words, it may be right or it may be wrong. It may even be the right conclusion to draw from that one time or even the multiple occurrences, but it is this generalization to try to explain every time everywhere to the exclusion of all other possibilities that the fallacy of anecdotal information is revealed. The hallmark or keystone of this problem is the insufficient amount of meaningful data and what data does exist is not obtained under a controlled environment. These ideas are not new. It traces all the way back to ancient Roman times. 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;