I think that we are playing a bit fast and loose with concept of, "fact." More specifically, we seem to be conflating the somewhat objective concept of, "fact," with the more subjective concept of, "truth."
There is a reason that the traditional witness' oath in Common Law courts is to tell, "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
An anectdote might well contain a fact, which from an objective standard is an actual, accurate record of an event. But there is nothing in the mere accuracy of a fact to tell you whether it is typical or exceptional. It is not enough to cite an example and claim the generality as a conclusion. You must prove the link.
Citing an anecdote as evidence of a general principle may be misleading if the speaker fails to take not of similar facts that contradict the general principle (failing to tell "the whole truth.") The selective culling of facts to support a preconceived idea is a similar practice.
There is a legal maxim that is appropriate to this, "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi." It doesn't matter whether you are left wing, right wing or a centrist the same responsibility applies.
_________________
--James
13 Jan 2011, 4:10 pm
