the point of argument- scientific v anecdotal

[BelleDameSansMerci]

<<<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? >>>

This is a really interesting dilemma. I'm getting ready to start my 
Masters degree in criminology, and the one thing that my undergrad 
has taught me is that you have to be careful with both scientific and 
anecdotal evidence, as everyone has an agenda, a political view, or a 
moral position that inevitably ends up tainting their perspective or 
opinion, no matter how much of an 'expert' they are in a given field.

The collection of 'scientific' data is rarely done by an impartial 
party. For instance, when the government collects data on its 
agencies and programs, it has vested interest in how the result read. 
There are so many spins put on the collected information, not to 
mention the discrepancy in what samples are used and from what areas, 
that I have a hard time seeing it as credible information. In terms 
of the data collected from other organizations, they usually also 
have vested interest what their results say- they don't want to show 
they their programs or organization is failing (and if they do, it is 
usually an appeal for more funding). My main problem when doing 
research this year has been finding that a great deal of studies on 
various criminal justice initiatives are actually undertaken by its 
creators- or its competitors. I have at times run into two articles 
examining the exact same data, one of which says something along the 
lines of "This program has been shown effective with HALF of the 
participants, which is a monumental discovery".....and then you 
inevitably get "This program HAS ONLY been show effective in 50% of 
the participants, so obviously it is not good enough".

In terms of expert opinion- experts are not immune to such things as 
political agenda or moral point of view.  For instance, my professors 
are considered experts in their fields....however I find that where 
they fit morally and politically definitely affects how they dispense 
and interpret information. Those that are more on the political 
right, and have a fixed view of morality, will not necessarily 
embrace or take seriously information that is not compatible with 
this point of view (ex- they tend to dismiss arguments about the 
ineffectiveness of prisons, no matter how sound the information is). 
On the other hand, those on the political left with very different 
views of morality do the exact same thing with the arguments made by 
the right. Whenever there is "expert testimony" in court, the other 
side always brings forth another "expert" in the field, who 
inevitably has a different point of view. You just can't win.

I personally tend to go with my own experiences and interpretations 
on things...if I'm dealing with statistics, I will try to interpret 
the raw data myself. If I'm using expert opinion, I'll try to find 
the arguments by another expert that discounts this, and see which 
argument I find stronger. However, at the moment, the source of data 
I find the most credible are the opinions and observations of those 
laymen who are actually in the middle of the situation. For instance, 
instead of going to what the data says about why women commit crime, 
or to the 'experts' in the field, I prefer to go to the women 
themselves and hear about their own experiences, in their own words, 
about their lives and what lead them to this point.

So......that is my long-winded opinion about expert v scientific 
evidence. Sorry for wasting a couple minutes of your time!

While I'm here, I may as well comment on the whole "how easy is it to 
get a child removed from the home" thing. I live in Ontario Canada, 
where this falls under Childrens Aid, and I work in the forensics 
ward of a psychiatric facility. I can tell you right now, from what I 
have experienced, and from what I have heard from a few friends who 
work in CAS (hahaha- once again- anecdotal- take it or leave it), 
it's not as hard as one may think to have a child removed from the 
home here in Ontario. 

Usually, if a complaint is made they are taken from the home that day 
in order to asses them and the situation. If there are grounds and 
the complaint has been found to be valid, they are either removed 
from the home for a period of time while the parent(s) get treatment, 
processed by the justice system, etc., or are returned to the home, 
but under supervision and conditions. Often, if the complaint is 
relatively minor, the latter is usually the best option for all 
parties involved, as it causes the least trauma to the children. 
However, if there is even the HINT that anything sexually 
inappropriate is involved, the kid(s) is out of there immediately, 
whether the accusation was real or not. 

~Cheers All~

Amber