the point of argument

[ovc88guelph]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Laura Ingalls Huntley 
<lhuntley at f...> wrote:
 
> David Witley:
> > The thing that puzzed me (and frequently does in arguments of 
this
> > type) is that many of the subjects that seem to generate the most
> > heat seem seem to  be empirical matters that could be settled 
with
> > recourse to official statistics and the like.
> 
Laura wrote 
> Even a body of hard, replicable data from controlled *scientific* 
> experiments isn't really trustworthy -- as human beings we are 
> incredibly subjective, and that colors everything we touch, no 
matter 
> how hard we try for objectivity.
> 
> You are right that statistical evidence is in some respects 
superior to 
> anecdotal evidence (and certainly more trusted by our society), 
> *provided* that everyone involved realizes its limitations and 
biases.  
> Personally, however, I'm very cynical towards statistics in 
general -- 

..., my preferred type of evidence is the Expert Opinion of someone 
> I have a reason to trust, although the problem with this is that 
other 
> people may not have any reason to also trust the people that I 
cite.  

> 
> However, an impartial Expert Opinion (that everyone will accept or 
even 
> *should* accept) is nearly impossible to find on the public 
internet, 

(David again)> 
> > IMO, properly marshalled information trumps any amount of my-
friend-
> > was-in-a-mall-and-saw-the-police-stand-by-and-hold-the-coats-of-
a-
> > gang-of-youths-while-they-beat-up-an-old-man anecdotes.

(Back to Laura) 
> Well, yes -- but "properly marshaled information" is hard to come 
by 
> and doesn't always mean the same thing to everyone who looks at it.
> 


Now me,
    First, let me apologize to Laura and David for liberally 
snipping amongst their comments. Please don't take offense to having 
your comments taken out of context. It's just that this conversation 
illustrates something interesting to me about how people gather 
information. I wonder what it is that makes new information 
believable. I think this is an incredible dilemma in our society and 
it worries me. 
     Here is what I see to be the problem. We are presented with 
information in two basic ways, either as "fact or statistic or 
scientific study" or "anecdote or personal experience". (I will not 
lump "expert testimony" in to a category, because it could fall into 
either!) Scientific information makes people very skeptical, because 
as Laura pointed out, statistics can be manipulated. But 
unfortunately, I see a tendency to "throw the baby out with the bath 
water", meaning that people distrust all scientific data as flawed. 
We do not know how to discern how truthful scientific information is 
because it is presented in a complex way. On the other hand, 
anecdotal information seems very trustworthy because we can 
understand the way in which the information is presented to us. Yet 
what is the value of the experience of one or even a few individuals 
in the greater scheme of things? Anecdotes from well intentioned 
individuals may be right, wrong, or meaningless; anecdotes from 
people with an agenda (eg a product to sell) are quite likely 
biased. Unfortunately, the same can be said of scientific data. So 
where does that leave us? Laura has suggested "impartial Expert 
Opinion", but this again leaves me wondering how "impartial" 
or "expert" that opinion is. I notice on the news (when I bother to 
watch nightly newscasts) that "expert" testimony simply means 
presenting two people of opposing views, not necessarily presenting 
evidence of the two points of view! This has been brought home to me 
on occasions where I am very well versed on a news topic and then am 
forced to listen to a supposed "expert" whom I know to be an 
ignoramus with a microphone. 
    Personally, I tend to give more weight to scientific evidence. 
Over time, I think that science winnows out the flawed information. 
I don't know how as a society we can solve this dilemma, though. 

MMcK.