dennis_couvillion Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 should read "disposable"... one day I will learn to proof read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 <i>In academia, the term "anecdotal evidence" is most often used apologetically by those offering such evidence, and scornfully by those pointing out the inadequacy of such evidence.</i> <p> All that means is that the evidence is being presented in a rather raw state, for which the presenter is apologizing and the receiver is complaining. But any academic who thinks <i>anecdote</i> is a synonym for <i>wive's tale</i> is a fool. There's always been a struggle between the Apollonian and Dionysian, but to value one to the exclusion of the other is a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 "But any academic who thinks anecdote is a synonym for wive's tale is a fool." I never equated anecdotal evidence with wives' tales. But I did take issue with your claim that anecdotal and statistical evidence are considered equally valuable. After twenty years in academia, I feel quite qualified to state that you will have a hard time finding any academics to agree with that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 But I never made that statement. I didn't say anecdote and statistic are "equal," I said that one doesn't <i>automatically</i> have more value than the other. Or aren't academics familiar with the saying <i>Lies, damned lies and statistics?</i> ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 You're obviously not trained in the scientific method and do not read academic publications. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with pretending that you know what you are talking (er, writing) about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted February 4, 2005 Author Share Posted February 4, 2005 The academics would still be discussing the original topic of this thread ;>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 And so the academic, when confronted with an argument from an outsider, lobs a smoke grenade in the form of an ad-hominem attack and retreats back into the safety of the ivory tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Well, I may be doing that, to an extent. Kevin. That's because I can't really teach you the scientific method via the internet. But here's a question: Why do you think the FDA runs large-scale clinical drug trials instead of just licensing a drug based on success with one or two patients (i.e, licensing on anecdotal evidence)? I'll give you the answer: because anecdotal evidence isn't worth much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I can't believe I actually read to the end of this thread. It has been a slow day at the office today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 "Why do you think the FDA runs large-scale clinical drug trials instead of just licensing a drug based on success with one or two patients (i.e, licensing on anecdotal evidence)?" Douglas. The FDA doesn't run clinical trials, the drug companies do, because they are required by the FDA. And even the large trials are not a guarantee of the safety of the drug. For example, a drug can be approved based on a trial or trials in a specific group of individuals, but it may then be prescribed to others without knowing that there is a subgroup of people in whom the drug is dangerous. This seems to be the case with Vioxx, which increases the number of cardiovascular events in men with other risk factors. The value of anecdotal evidence is that it may suggest a hypothesis that can then be tested, not because a definite conclusion can be made based upon a few anecdotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Douglas, the scientific method, as I remember learning it, is the <i>attempt</i> to remove human biases and prejudices from the process of observation, right? The better the experiment is constructed, the more reliable the data will be, etc.. But it's always just an attempt, isn't it, and therefore the possibility for error must be assumed, correct? I'm not saying, by any stretch, that one yokel's eyewitness account equals a two-year clinical trial, but to <i>completely</i> dismiss the one is to some degree a product of group arrogance towards outsiders rather than some lofty ideal. Your own native bias, in other words. <p> Dennis' original point appears entirely valid, as does yours. If individuals aren't keeping their cars as long, yet cars themselves are on the road longer, that simply means that a car will have more owners over its lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 BTW, Douglas, I'm not "pretending" that I'm something I'm not, or that I know something I don't know. I'm recalling what I learned in school and making my own stab at the scientific method, flawed as it may be. I apologize for mangling any words I borrowed from your lexicon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 why doesn't everyone go scan a negative, a dusty one, to keep yourselves busy for a bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 <I>why doesn't everyone go scan a negative...</i><P> Heh, Kevin's gone over to the Dark Side - he can go shooting instead... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Hmm, don't artists use anecdotal evidence? I know I do.... intuition, first hand experience, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 <i>Hmm, don't artists use anecdotal evidence? I know I do.... intuition, first hand experience, etc.</i> <p> Spot on Ray. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 "...don't artists use anecdotal evidence?" Different realm entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 ....respectfully, of course. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I knew a guy like you back in high school, Ray (anecdotally speaking)... always wanting to fight. I'll have you know that a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Resources recently concluded that an anecdotal study funded by the Endowment For The Arts was entirely incorrect in its conclusion that artists remember 68% of anecdotes pertaining to incidents that are the same or similar to their art work. So there...! Look, Ray, when you've been slinging bullsh*t as long as I have then come back and we'll talk. ;>) Reespectfully yours, Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 how'd you make out scanning those negs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Yeah ,we need the latest and greatest. Buckets of money make us the best: and and and on. Lets be honest, real photographers need 90 million pixels at least,well, until 100 million pixels arrive. Are we doing the leica fondlers in reverse here. Have a little think with the grey matter...strain that lonely place. Old brown bread HCB didn't need all the pixel wonder stuff, did he! Anyone better around here. Have a little think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Dennis, Brad. Simple mechanical camera, and a simple digi. Work it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now