- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
sure show us your math why it wouldnt.Um yeh I do in fact. Thats a nice laymans half assed version, here iw the version I am talking about:anecdotal.....not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
You don't know what that word means, do you?
Anecdotal evidence refers to an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. It is the opposite of scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence consists of events that tend to support a conclusion of discrimination. It may include individual experiences or stories, and statements by employers showing bias.
In In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 481 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), the court held “Anecdotal evidence' means reports of one kind of event following another. Typically, the reports are obtained haphazardly or selectively, and the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does not suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second. Consequently, while anecdotal evidence can be suggestive, it can also be quite misleading.”
Anecdotal Evidence Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Anecdotal evidence refers to an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. It is the opposite of scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence consists of events that tend to support adefinitions.uslegal.com
Now dont these trolls look even more stupid than you already knew?
Anecdotal evidence refers to an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. It is the opposite of scientific evidence.
Yeah, that's why your claim that DNA matching the passengers and wreckage from the plane is anecdotal sounded so utterly stupid.
Now your claim that the shutter speed of the camera should have given a clear picture of the 500+ MPH airplane......THAT was anecdotal.
You make me laugh, I had a cheap ass video camera from best buy that stopped a bullet just shy of 2000 feet per second, no where near the quality of the cams on the p.
try the legal definition that 'I' posted, see the part in red? I know this is really hard and how painful it is to be proven full of shit, I suggest you pick a topic next time that is within your paygrade
the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does not suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second.
Last edited: