Anecdotal Data

One Foot in the Gravy

Anecdotal Data

According to www.Dictionary.Com, an anecdote is a noun, defined as

1. A short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

2. A short, obscure historical or biographical account.

It has recently acquired a bad name, which is both curious and troubling. Anecdotal data is the basis for every branch of science. The apocryphal tale of Newton observing an apple fall to the ground is the quintessential story of anecdotal information. It allegedly led to Newtonian Physics, which is generally accepted as the standard. There appear to be exceptions to Newtonian Physics, generally focused on for example, where Newtonian physics doesn’t account for quantum mechanics and the fact that nothing can propagate faster than light.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anecdotal data. Sometimes it points to questions that need further examination. Sometimes it is shared with others, who include that data with their own on the topic, and might change their conclusions. That’s not a preferred outcome; instead, it should prompt more questions.

Anecdotal data is also at the root of all creation mythology, religions and dogma. (Mythology describes stories handed down through many generations, which can be either true or false). For example, the story of a global great flood is shared around the world by cultures with no known contact with one another. There is overwhelming evidence that a flood occurred in the Middle East, Europe, parts of Asia and most of North America, prompted by a sudden melting of the ice during the last ice age.

Anecdotal data interpretation and use can be problematic. I learned this during two hospitalizations for COVID19. The lack of accurate information about the disease by nurses is frightening. Physicians know that the focus on infections is misplaced; what matters is hospitalizations, because that is where things begin to go wrong. I discussed with a number of nurses that the danger of adverse reactions to a vaccine exceeds the danger of an adverse reaction to the virus for those under twenty. Nearly all claimed I was wrong, because they knew about cases of children being hospitalized.

I discovered that nearly half of all nurses caring for COVID patients had never been vaccinated. Most of them claimed they wouldn’t take a vaccine unless it meant dismissal from work. That blew me away. I’m not an anti-vax person, and I encourage everyone to be vaccinated. If there is any hesitancy, I recommend the individual consult with his or her physician. Even fully-vaccinated, breakthrough COVID is possible. I caught it, and eight hours after a Remdesivir infusion was begun I was 80% improved. My wife and our younger daughter also caught it, and were treated with monoclonal antibodies. They both recovered quickly.

Anecdotal data is also the root of much of the maltreatment of marginalized groups. Tribal bias is passed on orally, leading to confirmation bias. Someone sees a person of color commit a theft, and uses the anecdote to reinforce the tribal bias that all people of color are dishonest. Or, a person of color sees a police officer arresting someone, recalls a broadcast of a police officer’s trial in which the officer was accused of unnecessary use of force, and concludes that this officer must be guilty also.

The misuse of anecdotal data is rampant on internet discussion boards. People feel free to fling ad hominem attacks, knowing they are safe behind their anonymity. Misrepresentation of information is made easier by having an outlier to which one can point, claiming that the outlier invalidates the other individual’s entire argument. The use of anecdotal data to launch a “Well, what about …” is legendary. Such use, though, is often beneficial to untangling the truth in a lengthy harangue.

On an internet discussion board where Bernie Sanders was considered a right-winger, I often encountered lists of Trump’s “lies” and his “obvious” collaboration with Russia. A typical “lie” would be that Trump claimed a South Korean installation was on the border with North Korea, when it was in fact 15 km away. That is less than two minutes by North Korean IL-26 bomber. I don’t see a significant difference between “on the border” and two minutes therefrom.

In sum, anecdotal information is nothing more than perceptions acquired through normal human activities. As such, there is nothing wrong with it. When anecdotal information is aggregated and examined, then cross-examined, it may reach the status of a hypothesis or even a Theory. By itself, anecdotal information has little value except to raise questions. Which is a great value in and of itself.