[alan_cx]

Please forgive me if I have fundamentally misunderstood this, but is this article suggesting that anecdotes are some how comparable to scientific research data?

If one wants to "attack" an anecdote, then a contrarian anecdote is the weapon.

If one wants to attack scientific data, you need contrarian scientific data.

At least, I hope that is right. There for, to mix the two is like attacking a tank with a wooden stick.

Surely, anecdotes are used as the premise of scientific research. Lots of people tell stories. There seems to be something interesting going on. Then you do the research and produce the data. If the data is conclusive, then your past the anecdote. If later contrarian anecdotes appear, and they seem significant, off you go to scientific research again.

I know Im wrong somewhere. But where?