So you’ve never heard the term “anecdotal evidence” then. I said it adds to the discussion and doesn’t deserve downvoting by pitbull white knights, not that it needs to be booked into evidence for the supreme court case to decide the fate of all pit bulls.
Yes, I have in fact heard that term, which is exactly why I know that anecdotal evidence is not valid.
What does invalid evidence add to the discussion, exactly?
There are people in this thread who are arguing for legislation restricting ownership of pitbulls. We are in the court of public opinion, which may be less formal than the supreme court, but still has the capacity to influence public policy. So it seems reasonable to apply a very basic standard of evidence, above that of stuff that random people claim happen to their friend’s roommate.
So you’ve never heard the term “anecdotal evidence” then. I said it adds to the discussion and doesn’t deserve downvoting by pitbull white knights, not that it needs to be booked into evidence for the supreme court case to decide the fate of all pit bulls.
As I recall, it is generally brought up to point out how worthless it is in any particular debate.
But, go on…
Yeah Lemmy would be a great place if nobody ever discussed a personal story about how they were affected by a topic being discussed.
Your comment ignores all context of the thread, congrats.
Discussion is fine. Trying to pretend it proves your point is not.
Yes, I have in fact heard that term, which is exactly why I know that anecdotal evidence is not valid.
What does invalid evidence add to the discussion, exactly?
There are people in this thread who are arguing for legislation restricting ownership of pitbulls. We are in the court of public opinion, which may be less formal than the supreme court, but still has the capacity to influence public policy. So it seems reasonable to apply a very basic standard of evidence, above that of stuff that random people claim happen to their friend’s roommate.