Sorry but no. Anecdotal experience can and is used to reinforce confirmation bias.
Of course, anecdotes can be faux evidence to fuel a misunderstanding.
I don't justify that scenario.
(Some people are better using experience to grok reality than others, so not all such views are equivalent.)
Instead, I point to the usefulness of one's own experience as a perspective from which to judge evidence offered by others.
Fraught with peril this is, but worse it would be to embrace the opinions of others in a vacuum.
That would take some faith.
We should note that even experts using advanced quantum laser calculus to crunch data will exhibit bias & emotion.
Moreover, you've no basis to claim that emotion has skewed what I've seen.
It could be that it has, but you don't know.
It could also be that your opposition is emotional.
Tis hubris for one to dismiss another's experience when it conflicts with one's preferred beliefs.
Yes there are bad statistics around "How to Lie with Statistics" is still a good book to read. But the answer is not to toss science away in favor of emotional bias but to fix the studies by careful peer review and replication.
Toss away science?
Heaven forbid!
Science has been my money maker (although I haven't shaken it lately).
The scientific method is all about finding circumstances where the theories fail to match data.
It's the ever continuing process by which better theories replace the old.
Question the high & mighty, for no one has THE TRUTH.
To toss your words back at you In an engineer's parlance, design is making intelligent compromises for an optimal result.
I don't see what's being "tossed" other than agreement about designing systems..
Using the best statistics we have while trying to improve them IS an intelligent compromise tending toward an optimal result. Cherry picking anecdotes is not.
How do you judge what statistics are "the best"?
Is this not also "cherry picking" when there are conflicting studies?
It seems that you're vigorously arguing against my claim that experience (ie, a series of anecdotes) is useful in evaluating statistical studies.
If I run across examples which fly in the face of popular "facts", would you argue that I should not question them?
I also note that no one has presented a single study to conflict with what I've seen.
Statistics by themselves do not reason....they're (at best) merely one group's look at data.
Presuming the data are accurate & that the analysis is correct, we have information.
And what if they made some bad assumptions or mistakes?
The usefulness of this information is as premises in a cogent argument.
Tis the argument which is of value, not the mere claim that there are "statistics".