The Increasingly Popular Anecdotal Fallacy

So often these days I encounter people who want to argue by anecdote. Haven't they ever read Aristotle! Anecdotes can never prove a case, they can only disprove an "always" or "never" hypothesis. Let me explain.

If I say that television has had the overall tendency to make people stupider, less physically active, less creative, less aware of their surroundings, less able to read social cues and respond appropriately, more passive, more prone to manipulation, more withdrawn and isolated, less able to distinguish reality from fantasy, and less able to support their opinions with reasoned arguments,  you do not disprove my statement by telling me that you watch a lot of TV yet are intelligent, jog two miles every day, wrote a poem last night, are intensely aware of the color scheme in your wallpaper, know when your spouse is getting angry by the way his fingers curl up, have never once in your life been manipulated, withdrawn, or isolated, are able to tell a real cowboy from a fake one on TV, and are currently supporting your opinion with a reasoned argument. Even if your examples proved that you were a superior human being despite excessive TV watching, it only tells me about you. My hypothesis was not about you but about a general tendency. If I had said that TV always has these effects on people, then, yes, you providing one sound example would disprove my theory. For example, if you could find one human being who is immortal, it would disprove this classic deductive argument: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Here are a few more examples of the folly of anecdotal reasoning:

* I told a nurse that I was considering islet transplantation to rid myself of diabetes. She was horrified. She said that she had had a patient who had islet transplant and was doing worse than before transplantation. I asked her how many patients she had known who had had the procedure. Only that one, she said. Then I asked how long ago the patient had undergone islet transplant, and she said, "Five years ago." Now why would I base my decision on some woman who I don't know anything about--what shape she was in prior to transplant, how heavy she was, how well she follows a sensible diet, how much she exercises, how old she is, etc.--who had the procedure a half decade ago, during which time advances in technique have occurred.

* Einstein flunked math, yet he became the world's most brilliant theoretical physicist, a profession that requires a high level of mathematical acumen. Therefore, if you want to be a theoretical physicist of world-class standing, flunking math is the path you need to take.

* Studies say that smoking causes lung cancer, but my uncle Albert smoked a pack of cigarettes a day from the time he turned 13 until the day he died at 93. He never developed lung cancer, and as I recall, he never so much as caught a cold. So smoking really isn't bad for your health.

* Every mother tells her child that he should look both ways before crossing a street. I always hated it when my mother told me to do that. Such a worry wart she was! I make a point of closing my eyes when I cross a street. I've been doing this for at least 15 years, and I haven't been hit yet. It's stupid advice, and I say, "Close your eyes. You'll be just fine."

Why are so many people relying so heavily on anecdotes to support their opinions? I've got two theories:

* Our educational system at best gives lip service to critical thinking. It's something tacked on at the end of the year after all the memorization and standardized tests have been taken care of. Critical thinking should be a part of every lesson, but it's not because the school system is aiming at turning out unthinking, unquestioning robots who will fit into cubicle jobs that require no critical thinking.

I saw this at the college level, which is one of the major reasons why I am so glad I am no longer a part of that travesty. The university has become as Mickey Mouse as grade school with quantification and standardization the mantra, which means a dumbing down of material and no room for true cultivation of critical thinking.

* We are an extremely self-absorbed society. People argue from anecdotes because they feel the world and truth revolve around their own personal experience. If they can smoke and haven't developed lung cancer, then smoking is safe. If they can watch lots of TV and still have what they consider an engaged life, then TV is harmless.

Now this is not to say that personal experience is not valid. It's just that it is just that--personal. It does not speak for everyone.

So, folks, if you don't know how to support your opinions, please enroll in an introductory logic class at your local community college. Aristotle came up with 13 fallacies. I've only discussed one here.