Tilting at the "that's an anecdote" windmill.

From time to time I write here about the way people argue, which fascinates me. I have been doing this for about sixteen years now so you’ll have to forgive me if I can’t remember everyone, but just last month I wrote about accusations of whataboutism and sometime in the past I recall writing about the "you can’t prove that” argument and also analogies.

They are similar in a few ways. They are based on technically fair arguments. Whataboutism is based on relevance. “You can’t prove that” is based on the fact that you can’t prove anything scientific or many other things unless it is logically excluded. Disagreeing with someone else’s analogy is always allowed, but, as I have said at least once in this bulging sack of blog-opinions, though I know at least once I did well on a standardized test on analogy, somehow no one has ever agreed that an analogy I used when disagreeing with them was close enough to the facts of the subject to be useful.

All these arguments are technically valid. But often it is overkill. But, both are used by adversaries in an argument to get you not to be able to speak – which is, sadly, what a great deal of argument turns into if people are determined to win and cannot be convinced. Whataboutism is overused to refuse you to allow you to give any context to the discussion that would not support your adversary’s view, or demonstrate hypocrisy or at least err by them, by making it a thing – as if you may only refute or agree with the exact set of facts your adversary says. It is as if they can cross-examine you and insist you answer “yes” or “no.” The difference is, in an argument, it’s not a trial and you or your lawyer doesn’t get a chance. That’s just the end of the argument for them.

Here's something you might notice about those who accuse you about whataboutism or that you can’t scientifically “prove” your point (you can’t, of course, if you know anything about science, absolutely prove anything). You will probably never hear them say it to you when you are agreeing with them.

But, this post is about anecdote as in, that’s just an anecdote and therefore isn’t persuasive - so I will not go on about the other arguments people raise. I was debating with someone this past week about politics, and I made what was absolutely an anecdote to which he said – that’s just an anecdote. Okay, fair enough but only as far as it goes. I hadn’t actually made the argument that – “Here is my anecdote, and, therefore, I win!” Nor had I said, here is one time something happened.

Anecdote can actually be very persuasive sometimes, and actually can prove something (again, it’s hard to absolutely prove anything, but sometimes you can). When someone gives you an absolute, such as, “There were no chocolates in that bowl EVER!” and you respond with, “There’s a chocolate right there,” or, “I just ate a chocolate from the bowl,” as long as you are being truthful, demolishes their point.

I can think of two better, less abstract examples. Some years ago (I believe in 2004, when Bush was facing off against John Kerry in the presidential election) at someone else’s family dinner to which I was invited, someone said, “No president who was a war leader was re-elected,” which was of course an absolute. I started to think and said, “Well, Madison, War of 1812,” to which she agreed as an exception. Then I said, “Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon – who am I forgetting?” Frankly, I felt a little bad as I could see she was embarrassed, and it wasn’t my intention. Nevertheless, I gave anecdotal evidence. But, if I had only given one name, it proved her argument false.

In my second example, my opponent deserved a little embarrassment. For the second time in my life someone said to me “I don’t do absolutes,” with not a little bit of an air of superiority. The first time I thought of a comeback too late to use, later that day, but this time I was ready with – “You do know that’s an absolute, don’t you?” The point here is that, again, it was an anecdote – one personal example. But, enough to disprove their point, because it was an absolute. My anecdote just happened to be on that same exact topic.

BUT, for those of you who want to use anecdotes in discussions - FEEL FREE. Even if you are not pointing out that an absolute is not so by your story and your story just furthers your point, there is nothing wrong with it. Here’s the reason. An anecdote can be given for many reasons. Sometimes you just feel like telling a story. But, even if you are using an anecdote to try to be persuasive, it’s okay. Very few things in life are subject to enormous amounts of data or scientific experimentation. Trust me on this, your “I call anecdotal” opponent has and will continue to use them too. But, just because you use an anecdote (or can’t prove something with scientific precision) doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I am not saying, prove your arguments by using anecdotes all the time, as obviously it is true that an anecdote that doesn’t exclude the truth of what you are arguing against (as with disproving someone’s absolute with an example) can only do so much. I’m saying that people accuse others of a fallacy when they say - that is an anecdote and doesn’t prove anything, but it is they who are really making the fallacy when they assume that you are trying to do so, and what you say might actually be true as a point.

Very often with anecdotes, it is the factors surrounding them that make them more or less useful. For example, suppose you are in a group discussion about the dangers of Chernobyl to tourists and someone says, “My Uncle Hubert went to Chernobyl when he was 40 years old and in perfect health and died of radiation poisoning a few weeks later” I will find that goddamn persuasive and not go to Chernobyl.

And of course the more anecdotal evidence you have the more persuasive it is to us. Where anecdotal evidence turns into data or a good sample size I don’t know. But, I know I was persuaded that Bill Cosby was a rapist by the sheer number of women who were prepared to give evidence who had no benefit from doing so (they got no political advantage, they could no longer sue him for money, they were coming out to the world that they were raped – and women, many of them no spring chickens tend to feel shame about it). Each had an anecdote, but together it was extremely powerful.

As with the other arguments I discussed above, you will probably find that no one ever says “That’s just an anecdote when you are agreeing with them.” Then they will very likely find it very persuasive in that case. At least, that has been my long experience.

Arguments usually means something is unsettled. What interests me is the way they are used, or overused, and how they usually lead to some form of an opponent dictating to you – you can’t say that. I’m sure my critics (the only critics I actually have are close friends, relatives and my evalovin’ gf) would say I am guilty of all the above. Fine. Maybe so. Maybe I’m the worst ever at it. But, doesn’t make it not so. I don’t think I discovered anything in writing about this topic. But, it is something I think about a bit and I don’t think most people do. Perhaps wanting to help people argue better makes is Quixotic. Okay. Then I am tilting at windmills (again). Hope not too much.