Might I suggest we are confusing "empirical" with "systematic?" Anecdote
is an empirical observation, but it is not a systematic observation,
observed according to a plan designed to minimize sources of invalidity
in the observation.
--
Robert McGrath, Ph.D.
Professor
School of Psychology T110A, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck NJ 07666
voice: 201-692-2445 fax: 201-692-2304 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Muriel Strand wrote:
> pardon me, but my reaction is not personal. the precise meaning of basic important
>words
> such as empirical and anecdotal matters, because otherwise discourse fails to
>communicate
> accurately.
>
> if one is talking about a single empirical observation, i fail to see the distinction
> between an anecdote and an empirical observation.
>
> the strength of a single empirical or anecdotal observation can vary. if it
>disproves a
> theory by providing a contrary example, it can be very powerful.
>
> is the "empirical method" the same as the "scientific method?" is the "empirical
>method"
> the same as the "statistical method?" likely not, as the existence of different
>words
> usually arises from differences in meaning.
>
> is there such a critter as the "anecdotal method?" philosophy perhaps?
>
> i await with great interest enlightenment from list-members.
>
> muriel
>
> Michael Atherton wrote:
>
> > I had said that, "...your 'evidence' looks much more anecdotal than empirical".
> > Anecdotal means: a short narrative concerning an interesting or amusing
> > incident or event. I still believe that your evidence looks more anecdotal
> > than empirical. Especially in the sense of "empirical method", where a
> > single data point is not normally considered strong evidence.
> >
> > PS: Since you cc'ed your response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] perhaps
> > you could tell me how to subscribe to this list-server (or if anyone else
> > reading this overly personal exchange could tell me how it would be
> > helpful).
> >
> > Muriel Strand wrote:
> >
> > > please note that empirical means "relying on observation or experiment; guided by
> > > experience rather than theory." i had always understood that a single
>observation was
> > > by definition empirical???
> > >
> > > and then, how exactly can a reference be itself empirical if what one observes
>is a
> > > description of observation/s of event/s?
> > >
> > > Michael Atherton wrote:
> > >
> > > > Muriel Strand wrote:
> > > >
> > > > snip
> > > > (besides your "evidence" looks much more anecdotal than empirical).
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.tc.umn.edu/~athe0007
>
> --
> Any resemblance of any of the above opinions to anybody's official position is
>completely
> coincidental.
>
> Muriel Strand, P.E.
> Air Resources Engineer
> CA Air Resources Board
> 2020 L Street
> Sacramento, CA 59814
> 916-324-9661
> 916-327-8524 (fax)
> www.arb.ca.gov
>
>
>
