Yes It’s True: I must explain binary, anecdotal evidence

“I’m just a soul whose intentions are good… Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.” — Eric Burdon & the Animals, 1965

My use of two terms in describing debate issues has caused me mild discomfort in recent weeks. I feel badly that my introduction of the two has caused considerable misunderstandings.

The two culprits are “anecdotal evidence” and “binary thinking,” both of which have aroused ire on this site and on Facebook.

Anecdotal evidence is that “collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony… Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.” — Taken from a Google search.

Meanwhile, Binary thinking is “always putting things in terms of two options that are usually mutually exclusive. That is all the possibilities are either option A or option B and not both. Sometimes this is valid, but often it is a mistaken simplification.” — Taken from Google.

I have noticed anecdotal evidence often on Facebook and it drives me batpoop crazy when people use it to prove a point with flawed and incomplete proof.

A couple of anecdotal examples, only some of many:

• The common argument that spanking is good for children because “my parents paddled my behind or gave me a good whuppin’ and I turned out just fine.” It may be true in this one case, but there is plenty of evidence in scientific studies that say otherwise.
• Or it shows up in memes of kids from days gone by riding in the back of station wagons and pickup trucks who survived. Such flawed logic could promote risky behavior with tragic results.

I suppose this renders me as a “snowflake,” a “wussie.”

Binary thinking has enjoyed revival in these modern times, fueled by the Trump presidency and evangelical, fundamentalist Christian principals that insist each of us is either for good and righteousness or with evil and Beelzebub.

Former President George W. Bush nearly 20 years ago told us, “You’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” There were many of us who weren’t on the side of terrorists, but we were ostracized for opposing the invasion of Iraq, one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in modern American history.

As I have written before, it seems every time an issue arises, it’s couched in a binary “which side are you on?” question, only one or the other on opposite sides. As if there is no other option or nuances worthy of consideration.

I’m am so tired of Democrat vs. Republican, red vs. blue, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, black vs. white as the dominant characteristic in political discourse with little use of the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in between or there are better options.

I will sort of apologize to those offended by my suggestions of anecdotal evidence or binary thinking. My personal motto as a community journalist remains as, “I write about what I see and hear. And sometimes I comment on it.”