▲ | ThunderSizzle 5 days ago | |||||||||||||
Whose to say "cited findings" have any more value than "anecdata". The institutions that build these national and international statistics do so with bias and goals, or without complete data. For example, how can a bureau make a national statistics on crime accurate when cities intentional report crime incorrectly to look better in statistics. To think "cited findings" is gospel truth is naive. I know it's highly desired here, but I stand by what I'm saying. Data is lovely, but garbage in, garbage out, and most national-level data is complete garbage with an agenda or bias or naivety. | ||||||||||||||
▲ | PxldLtd 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
Anecdotes are not a very useful tool in discussions about generalisations. They provide little evidence aside from saying that it's a category of event that can exist. No one at any point has said citations are gospel. Just that anecdotes aren't adding much to the discussion at hand. If you've got issues with the cited data, be precise instead of casting general aspersions on academia. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
▲ | buellerbueller 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
Then argue the methodology and data; anecdotes are great tools for sharing narratives, but a narrative based on bad data doesn't help anyone achieve good outcomes. | ||||||||||||||
▲ | jimbokun 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
> Whose to say "cited findings" have any more value than "anecdata". The history of human civilization. |