|
So the reason the plural of anecdote is not, in fact, evidence is because science doesn't actually work by piling up data in favor of a hypothesis.
It works by disproving other hypotheses until only one (or more excitingly, zero) is left. An anecdote like this doesn't disprove the null hypothesis of "the patient just got better after awhile, because people frequently just get better after awhile". It doesn't matter how many similar anecdotes you stack up, because the null hypothesis still hasn't been disproved. You could have millions of perfectly true, identical anecdotes, and it still wouldn't change the situation, so why should anyone listen to one? (Now, anecdotes are useful for identifying avenues of search, but that means the only thing you should be doing after reading an anecdote like this is running off to do a lit search for any actual studies, not trying it yourself or yes-anding with your own anecdotes.) On the other hand, there are situations where an anecdote provides ample evidence. If a reiki practitioner walked up to a patient with a complete dissection of the lower spine, verified on X-ray, waves his hands over the patient, and a week later the patient is up and walking, holy shit, reiki works! There is no "people sometimes get better"[0], so the null hypothesis of "the patient will still be paralyzed" would have been disproven adequately by a single anecdote, assuming fraud was ruled out. [0]I don't actually know for sure that people don't spontaneously get better from such a injury, but it was the clearest example I could think of. |