Egotistical Google Experts

[the_bloke]

IS LITERALLY WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON HERE ..

 

Posters who reply to posts giving ''expert'' opinion from two minutes of reading it up on google.

 

Go and look at the stupidity on the old 'did man really land on the moon thread' for a classic example of evidence vs. nonsense.

 

When challenging someone about their (usually sensationalist/exaggerated/offensive/small minded/plainly stupid) opinion or experience, I see no problem with backing up my own viewpoint with a link pointing to evidence to show them the possible error in their thinking. For a lot of us who have been discussing things on the Internet for many years, evidence is second nature; it provides credibility to your viewpoint and prevents you looking like an idiot.

 

There are lots of discussions on the forum where none of us have any personal experience at all. Should no one answer?

[MintPlumbing]

Don't confuse opinion with evidence.

I don't, but thanks for the advise.

 

It should be easy enough to find some real statistical evidence about the duration of the common cold.

Its very easy, but you still have to accept that its true.

The NHS website says that a cold lasts x days, I have to trust that what they are claiming is true, if it contradicts my observation then I am unlikely to trust it.

 

I know 100 people and they all had a cold that lasted for y days, my cold also lasted y days, that's evidence based on my own observation.

 

And this is entirely legitimate, and you can then argue about how the evidence leads you logically to a conclusion.

 

The evidence can still lead different people to a different conclusion.

 

Well, yes, they can't both be correct. One group is most definitely wrong.

No they can't, but each can believe they are correct and the other is wrong.

 

 

If you want to accept ridiculous s as evidence.

 

Short interesting stories about real incidents or people are evidence. I saw a man wearing a black coat and blue jeans put a bottle of whiskey in his coat whilst shopping in Tesco. That's a short interesting story that would be used as evidence.

 

 

Perhaps that's how you discuss, I don't.

Nor me, but many do.

 

No. Not in the slightest. I'm accepting it as correct on the evidence presented and until some other evidence comes along to contradict it.

So you personally review all evidence before accepting that something is true.

 

Also, you and many other people confuse anecdote with evidence.

 

I don't think I do but feel free to explain the difference.

 

Whilst out you are attacked, you explain this to the police and give them a description of your attacker. Do they use your story as evidence or do they dismiss your anecdote and tell you to come back when you have some evidence.

[RootsBooster]

If someone is expressing an opinion based on their own personal experience, how can it be corrected? Saying its rubbish or not true won't change the fact that they experienced it so know it to be true.

 

Mintplumbing, if one of your customers is of the opinion, based on their experience, that the work you carried out is not worth the price you quoted, does that mean that it must be true?

[MintPlumbing]

Because I think 'The Matrix' was an entertaining work of fiction not a documentary.

 

Hundreds of people claim to have been probed by aliens on spaceships orbiting Uranus. I don't believe those anecdotes either.

 

Observations not insults: you've misinterpreted posts in this thread, and you don't understand how science works.

 

You not believing them doesn't mean they are in error.

 

Observing people and pointing out what you perceive to be flaws in their abilities, intelligence or appearance are very often taken as insults.

 

What do you think I have misinterpreted?

 

I fully understand how science works and I also understand that if you didn't review all the data and check the science for your self then you are taking it on trust that the people that did the science got it right. Its not uncommon for something thought to be a proven fact to turn out not to be a fact at all.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 17:36 ----------

 

The peer review process and the fact that many unconnected people HAVE repeated experiments is what allows us to have confidence that the results are real.

 

Anecdotes simply aren't evidence.

 

Your opinion on a subject is still based on the belief that they got it right unless you also saw all the evidence and replicated their findings.

 

Anecdotes are based on observations.

Please explain why you don't think someones observation are evidence that an event took place.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 18:17 ----------

 

Mintplumbing, if one of your customers is of the opinion, based on their experience, that the work you carried out is not worth the price you quoted, does that mean that it must be true?

 

Its true in their opinion, I am obviously not duty bound to share their opinion, but I would try to turn them into satisfied customer.

[Cyclone]

I'd say that believing something that has been peer reviewed and is open to subject, makes more sense than believing someone on the internet who contradicts on the basis of either nothing, or personal experience.

 

You can google for yourself why anecdotes aren't evidence, the subject has been done to death.

 

Being "true in their opinion" in no way actually alters reality. And as such it isn't true. It's an opinion that is wrong. Only subjective things are a matter of opinion. Objective things have a reality, and an opinion that differs from it, is wrong.

 

I still don't really know if you have a point anyway. The topic of the thread is people looking up evidence using a search engine to support something they've said, be that opinion or statement of fact. There is no good reason that people shouldn't do it. Presenting evidence is the sign of a good discussion and a strong argument. Not being able to produce evidence, or it being uncorroborated is the sign of a weak argument.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 18:49 ----------

 

If someone is expressing an opinion based on their own personal experience, how can it be corrected? Saying its rubbish or not true won't change the fact that they experienced it so know it to be true.

 

Is this your point? You honestly believe that all opinions are correct.

 

In my opinion you're wrong. Where does that leave you? I've experienced it, I know it to be true... Oh dear.

 

You saying that I'm wrong or that it's rubbish won't change the fact that I've experienced it and know it to be true.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Cyclone

[MintPlumbing]

I'd say that believing something that has been peer reviewed and is open to subject, makes more sense than believing someone on the internet who contradicts on the basis of either nothing, or personal experience.

 

I'd say my personal experience is far more reliable than the internet, how do you know which websites are publishing accurate information. You quote a website that supports your point, I quote one the supports my point and contradicts your point.

 

 

You can google for yourself why anecdotes aren't evidence, the subject has been done to death.

 

Its your statement so its down to you to demonstrate why you think they are not. I already explained why they are, and how they are used, and your only counter argument is google it. I don't need to google it because I know that you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

Being "true in their opinion" in no way actually alters reality. And as such it isn't true. It's an opinion that is wrong. Only subjective things are a matter of opinion. Objective things have a reality, and an opinion that differs from it, is wrong.

If a observe a squirrel running up a tree, I can't prove to you or anyone else that it ran up the tree, the fact I can't prove it doesn't alter the fact that the squirrel did run up the tree, and no amount of you asking for peer reviewed evidence will change that fact.

 

 

 

 

I still don't really know if you have a point anyway. The topic of the thread is people looking up evidence using a search engine to support something they've said, be that opinion or statement of fact. There is no good reason that people shouldn't do it. Presenting evidence is the sign of a good discussion and a strong argument. Not being able to produce evidence, or it being uncorroborated is the sign of a weak argument.

 

Ditto, I have no idea what point you are trying to make, I haven't said they shouldn't do it, what I have observed is that most of the members that come out with statements like "that's rubbish", don't support their claim with evidence, and they dismiss any evidence that is posted to support the statement that they claim is rubbish.

 

 

Is this your point? You honestly believe that all opinions are correct.

In which post do you believe I made such a claim, if its the one you quoted then you misunderstood it.

 

 

In my opinion you're wrong. Where does that leave you? I've experienced it, I know it to be true... Oh dear.

 

It leaves me believing that you are wrong and you believing that I am wrong.

 

 

You saying that I'm wrong or that it's rubbish won't change the fact that I've experienced it and know it to be true.

 

What have you experienced that you know to be true, that I have claimed is not true?

[Cyclone]

You want me to prove my opinion about anecdotes... No, you've said that if someone has an opinion it is inviolable, the truth.

And you think I'm wrong. You said in that post that an opinion couldn't be wrong.

 

You being wrong is obviously what I'm experiencing right now, that you are claiming I'm wrong about. Duh.

[RootsBooster]

...they experienced it so know it to be true.

 

Its true in their opinion...

 

You're mixing words here.

Knowing something to be true and being of the opinion that something is true are certainly not the same thing.

 

Anecdotal evidence carries the word 'evidence' in the same way that pseudo science carries the word 'science'.

An anecdote is merely an account of events, which may or may not be true. It only really becomes evidence if it is true, in which case it's not so much anecdote as it is fact.

 

If I were to tell you about my lovely visit to the Moon last year (despite the cold weather and the noisy Clangers), would you consider that anecdote to be evidence that I have actually been to the Moon?

[Cyclone]

Even true anecdotes are pretty much worthless as evidence, at least when you attempt to generalise from them.

 

I saw a motorist run a red light, red light running is a problem and we must do something about it. Etc, etc...

In reality my anecdote (whilst fact) is not evidence beyond the fact that I saw a single motorist run a red light. It takes real data to gather evidence about whether red light running is endemic, or whether I suffer confirmation bias against motorists.

Eye witness 'evidence' is considered to be the least useful and reliable form even when looking at a specific single event, because human memory is actually pretty terrible. We fill in gaps, we twist what we saw to fit our prejudices and after a few weeks accurate recall of what really happened is almost impossible. I don't remember the hundreds of motorists who drive carefully, I remember the one that ran the red light, and the one that cut me up. And so I form an opinion that motorists are all rule ignoring, homicidal maniacs. Mint then says that my opinion can't be wrong... Which might be confusing to the 99% of motorists who are actually careful and considerate.

[TJC1]

Even true anecdotes are pretty much worthless as evidence, at least when you attempt to generalise from them.

 

I saw a motorist run a red light, red light running is a problem and we must do something about it. Etc, etc...

In reality my anecdote (whilst fact) is not evidence beyond the fact that I saw a single motorist run a red light. It takes real data to gather evidence about whether red light running is endemic, or whether I suffer confirmation bias against motorists.

Eye witness 'evidence' is considered to be the least useful and reliable form even when looking at a specific single event, because human memory is actually pretty terrible. We fill in gaps, we twist what we saw to fit our prejudices and after a few weeks accurate recall of what really happened is almost impossible. I don't remember the hundreds of motorists who drive carefully, I remember the one that ran the red light, and the one that cut me up. And so I form an opinion that motorists are all rule ignoring, homicidal maniacs. Mint then says that my opinion can't be wrong... Which might be confusing to the 99% of motorists who are actually careful and considerate.

 

If the same or similar events pop up in SF. We can hold them to be true.