Can you explain what you mean? Because I think we’re reading a very different meaning into it.
I read it as clever wordplay to acknowledge that one’s anecdote is not the same as data (by putting “data” in place of “dote” in ‘anecdote’ due to the similar sound). Considering that “argument from anecdote” is literally considered a type of fallacy, highlighting that one’s own experience is not scientifically rigorous enough to be considered data seems to be in alignment with general thinking on the matter.
Then again I’ve just learned that in 2020 the OED actually published “anecdata” literally as a facetious/disparaging plural of “anecdote,” so perhaps that’s why you take issue with the quote?
You shouldn’t love this. It is a statement informed by a misunderstanding of epistemology and the philosophy of science.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I think we’re reading a very different meaning into it.
I read it as clever wordplay to acknowledge that one’s anecdote is not the same as data (by putting “data” in place of “dote” in ‘anecdote’ due to the similar sound). Considering that “argument from anecdote” is literally considered a type of fallacy, highlighting that one’s own experience is not scientifically rigorous enough to be considered data seems to be in alignment with general thinking on the matter.
Then again I’ve just learned that in 2020 the OED actually published “anecdata” literally as a facetious/disparaging plural of “anecdote,” so perhaps that’s why you take issue with the quote?
Can you explain what’s wrong with it?