JavaMan writes:
The first because science doesn't provide certainty even when the concensus of opinion leans heavily one way, and in the case of controversial medical issues scientific opinion may be divided, or scientifc evidence may be inconclusive.
Well, that's the whole point of science. We don't actually "prove" anything. But we try to make it as certain as we possibly can. Will there always be uncertainty in the result? Yes, of course. But ask yourself this question. Would you rather see the certainty and uncertainty as is explored carefully and repeatably in scientific studies or would you rather have the certainty from someone's personal experience?
The second because personal experience and anecdote are evidence. Personal experience, in fact, is the biggest chunk of evidence we have, and it's only through personal experience that we filter the evidence or opinion we receive from the scientific community.
I don't think anyone was trying to claim that experience and anecdote are not evidence. What we try to tell people is that for the most parts experiences and anecdotes by the average person is untrustworthy, not because he is dishonest but because he is not properly trained.
I do a lot of programming. My father, on the other hand, has trouble turning on a computer. Whose experience and anecdote do you trust more in regard to protramming? Mine or my father's?
Apply the same concept to scientific studies. Which side do you trust more? Just some people out there or real scientists making real efforts to make repeatable studies and repeatable results?
Maybe people are getting carried away by rhetoric, but many of the most respected debaters here seem to have been suggesting that science is the only way we can acquire trustworthy knowledge about the world.
I'm one of those who believe that science really is the only way we can acquire trustworthy knowledge about the world. Why? Because it's the discipline that is involved. I spent some years working in biology research labs and some years working in programming research. I can tell you this much. It's rigorous stuff. At every turn, there was always someone checking my results and someone else checking his findings. I've had to write reports after reports after reports, each with huge chunks of data attached to it.
Can we sometimes trust our own personal experience and anecdotes to acquire information? Sure, nothing is stopping us from doing it. But should we trust them more than scientific studies? I say no.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
™ Version 4.2
