[113]

What you're saying is anecdotal.

[coldtea]

Yes, so? We're not automatons that only speak with citations and meta-studies, nor it is prudent to do so.

Empirical personal observation will always be very important.

[113]

It is prudent to make decisions based on evidence though. Not just something you think might have happened to you.

[coldtea]

Well, when you're not supposed to be doing a universal study, what happened to you is your first line of evidence.

If all scientific evidence says oranges are harmless, and you eat one and have to puke, then you'll avoid it, and rightly so, based on your empirical observation of 1.

[113]

You would avoid that orange, but you wouldn't say to someone "don't eat oranges, I had one once and it was bad", which is what you are doing.

You can't always do a large study, but when you're presented with one it doesn't help do give anecdotes in response.

[coldtea]

>You can't always do a large study, but when you're presented with one it doesn't help do give anecdotes in response.

No, but it's healthy to be skeptical of a study in face of contrary immediate experiences. After all it's a product of a flawed human process (and most are crap, even according to researchers themselves).