It's not an "anecdote", the academic name is "Interpretive phenomenology".
no, I'm not joking
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920907254
no, I'm not joking
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920907254
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
26 comments:
I think the existence of this article presents another point. Many people might say that this kind of "research" is just a waste of money, however that is not true, there is value in this "research" to those funding it, in the form of the bogus "data" and "conclusions" it returns which is used to support their bad faith arguments
I hear this shit all the time. Statistics and “sources” are all government, msm, academics.
Yeah like I trust any of those Jews.
Yeah like I trust any of those Jews.
Accounts and claims of the supposed so called hollowhoax are all completely anecdotal.
I saw a piece of paper move by itself in my house, therefore my house must be haunted. I wont allow others to convince me it could be anything else when I saw it with my own eyes.
if you can gather enough anecdotes to clearly see a pattern and predict further additions to it, then yes, it's obviously evidence. "Anecdotes aren't evidence" is there so outliers do not blur reality en masse. Problem is when midwits use it like a catchphrase
Then they turn around and tell you to trust the "experts"… expert means someone who's experienced, i.e. someone with more anecdotes.
Toast message
This is why we don’t trust anecdotes.
My point was that you should form your opinions based on your own experience and not allow others to invalidate it with supposed studies and statistics.