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]

Originally posted by Starrman
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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by Beady
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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by gnome
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]

Originally posted by Beady
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]

Originally posted by Beady
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]

Originally posted by gnome
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]

Originally posted by rwguinn
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]

Originally posted by Beady
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]

Originally posted by new drkitten
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]

Originally posted by rwguinn
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]

Originally posted by 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

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.

[thaiboxerken]

An anecdote of a person doing something mundane is of much more value than one of a person doing paranormal feats.

Do critical thinkers resort to Woo-woo tactics?

No, because we acknowledge that it is an anecdote and not really "evidence" of anything. However, it is a decent reason to doubt the extraordinary claims of JOG.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
An anecdote of a person doing something mundane is of much more value than one of a person doing paranormal feats.

Ah---"My strength is that of ten because my heart is pure"? Sounds almost religous--our stories are true because they come from the true god, not that faker you believe in.



No, because we acknowledge that it is an anecdote and not really "evidence" of anything. However, it is a decent reason to doubt the extraordinary claims of JOG.
Don't need any reason other than the demonstrable fact that he is full of (rule 8)

Roger

[thaiboxerken]

Ah---"My strength is that of ten because my heart is pure"? Sounds almost religous--our stories are true because they come from the true god, not that faker you believe in.

This is definitely an inaccurate analogy. The mundane are those things which most people will agree to being factually possible. A woman getting an infection from a cut is not extraordinary. The claim that a person is possessed by spirits and never causes infections with his scalpel, despite the lack of sanitation, is extraordinary. There are no gods involved with my position, and there is plenty of evidence to support that fact that cuts can become infected. The nature of an anecdote is what can give it more or less value. I am perfectly willing to accept an anecdote from my wife when she says that the dog pooped on the rug, even if I didn't see any evidence. However, if my wife said that the turd floated in the air and grew wings, I'd really have to doubt her anecdote unless I saw evidence.

Don't need any reason other than the demonstrable fact that he is full of

It seems to me that yours are the eyes that are brown.

[Starrman]

An anecdote of a person doing something mundane is of much more value than one of a person doing paranormal feats.

So you think it was OK for Randi to take an e-mail from a complete stranger, with no coroboration as evidence against John of God?

Again - I think the dude is a scum-bag liar, and am not defending him. But we scream for the medical records of those claiming to be healed, but just accept someone's word that they got an infection. I do think this case is somewhat of a double-standard.

No, because we acknowledge that it is an anecdote and not really "evidence" of anything. However, it is a decent reason to doubt the extraordinary claims of JOG.

In this specific case and for the referring commentary, I don't think this is true. In general, you are right - but I read it as taking an e-mail story from a stranger at face-value simply because it says what we all want to hear.

I haven't re-read it in a while, I'll take another look and see if I feel any different.

[thaiboxerken]

So you think it was OK for Randi to take an e-mail from a complete stranger, with no coroboration as evidence against John of God?

I think it was ok for Randi to post the email.

I do think this case is somewhat of a double-standard.

It is. If someone tells me that they can drive a car, I'll usually believe them. If they say they can shoot lasers out of their arse, I don't believe them. Yes, it's a double-standard, but it's one I've developed based on my knowledge of reality.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

It is. If someone tells me that they can drive a car, I'll usually believe them. If they say they can shoot lasers out of their arse, I don't believe them. Yes, it's a double-standard, but it's one I've developed based on my knowledge of reality.

Of course, since no one has actually told you they can shoot lasers out of their arse, I'd have to question how strong your grasp really is.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Of course, since no one has actually told you they can shoot lasers out of their arse, I'd have to question how strong your grasp really is.

There you go again: You know everything that anyone has ever told other people.

[Starrman]

It is. If someone tells me that they can drive a car, I'll usually believe them. If they say they can shoot lasers out of their arse, I don't believe them. Yes, it's a double-standard, but it's one I've developed based on my knowledge of reality.

I see your point, certainly someone e-mailing saying JOG cured a brain tumor should be dismissed in terms of evidence in favor of JOG.

And certainly someone getting an infection from an incision JOG made is something that is possible, if not likely.

There are millions of documented cases of infections from cuts, and no documented cases of JOG directly healing someone.

While this anecdote in no way proves an infection occurred, it is more plausible than any of the healing stories (healing attributed to his magic powers - I'm sure some people got better naturally or through conventional treatment).

I think this is the key sentence:

Also, infections do occur — serious ones, to judge from this account.

Reading this again in the light of some of the comments on this topic, this seems to be acknowledging that the conclusions is only as valid as the e-mail.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by jzs
Of course, since no one has actually told you they can shoot lasers out of their arse, I'd have to question how strong your grasp really is.

This is true, but people have told me that they can talk to spirits and that they can manipulate chi energy. ;)

Reading this again in the light of some of the comments on this topic, this seems to be acknowledging that the conclusions is only as valid as the e-mail.

What's great about this board is that people are open enough to have their minds changed. Kudos to you for seeing my side of the issue. :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There you go again: You know everything that anyone has ever told other people.

In response to what I said, Ken said "This is true", so it seems I was correct.

The truth hurts. :D