Anecdotal vs. empirical

[Steve]

The nature of anecdotal evidence is that it's never comprehensive, and can only be used as evidence in support of or contrary to a supposition or claim. It never proves, except in disproving absolutes.

Agree to an extent. As I alluded to above, there is a meaningful and important distinction between the following two statements:

"I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, AND I also survived a mugging."
"Because I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I survived a mugging."

The first one may be demonstrably true, based on anecdotal evidence. The second one is entirely speculative and not supported in any way by the anecdotal evidence.

In the same way, one could evaluate the following two statements:

"My doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, AND I recovered from my illness."
"Because my doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, I recovered from my illness."

 

[Steve]

yes your right and this one is particularly dodgy, that's why I'm still wondering what Steve was trying to show with it

It's a riddle. I still believe you can figure it out, if you try your hardest. I believe in you, jobo.

 

[jobo]

It's a riddle. I still believe you can figure it out, if you try your hardest. I believe in you, jobo.

thanks but I gave up two hours ago, it will have to remain unsolved

 

[jobo]

Agree to an extent. As I alluded to above, there is a meaningful and important distinction between the following two statements:

"I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, AND I also survived a mugging."
"Because I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I survived a mugging."

The first one may be demonstrably true, based on anecdotal evidence. The second one is entirely speculative and not supported in any way by the anecdotal evidence.

In the same way, one could evaluate the following two statements:

"My doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, AND I recovered from my illness."
"Because my doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, I recovered from my illness."

no but I,survived a mugging when I caught the mugger by surprise with a spinning axe kick, is quite good,

but the whole thing is meaningless, what worked for me might not work for you, so it in no way validates if a style is good against beibg mugged

 

[Steve]

no but I,survived a mugging when I caught the mugger by surprise with a spinning axe kick, is quite good,

but the whole thing is meaningless, what worked for me might not work for you, so it in no way validates if a style is good against beibg mugged

The point is that you may not actually know what worked. Its a correlation causation thing.

 

[jobo]

The point is that you may not actually know what worked. Its a correlation causation thing.

no you may not, but if you used a,skill your spent months perfecting, its quite reasonable to give credit to that technique, . if it resulted in the mugger falling to the ground screaming in pain, then its a fair chance it worked and adverted the mugging. That really is empirical evidence

 

[drop bear]

no you may not, but if you used a,skill your spent months perfecting, its quite reasonable to give credit to that technique, . if it resulted in the mugger falling to the ground screaming in pain, then its a fair chance it worked and adverted the mugging. That really is empirical evidence

The point I am trying to express here is evidence should be repeatable.

 

[jobo]

The point I am trying to express here is evidence should be repeatable.

ideally, but unless the same mugger attacks you in the same place and falls for the same trick that's not possible in this scenario..
if may work better or worse with a different mugger so you will never get an exact repeat

 

[drop bear]

ideally, but unless the same mugger attacks you in the same place and falls for the same trick that's not possible in this scenario..
if may work better or worse with a different mugger so you will never get an exact repeat

Which is why anecdotal stories of the street are pretty crap. And I will mostly settle for what I can do in the gym.

Back to the lab. As we say.

Now there are some tricks and traps I do that are purely street. And that is because I used them a lot. But I still like to separate what I have found works from what I can repeat in an environment you can observe.

Like my gun disarm. I haven't disarmed a gun. But I have disarmed a ton of glasses. And can repeat it with fake guns. Now there is still uncertanty. But it is the best i can give on that topic.

 

[jobo]

Which is why anecdotal stories of the street are pretty crap. And I will mostly settle for what I can do in the gym.

Back to the lab. As we say.

Now there are some tricks and traps I do that are purely street. And that is because I used them a lot. But I still like to separate what I have found works from what I can repeat in an environment you can observe.

yes but i have empiric evidence of my techneque, you have empiric evidence of yours, when we,swop stories on the internet they are both just anecdotes

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do that as I can't open the,door with out them, if I wanted a weapon is go for something a bit better than key

That's not about having a weapon - it's about being able to keep your head on a swivel, rather than looking for your keys - and to be able to get in your car quickly if there's a threat. You don't need them on approach (walking through the car park), but it's a good idea to have them out early. This is somewhat less an issue for most men (because our keys are easier to find and retrieve than in a woman's purse).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes your right and this one is particularly dodgy, that's why I'm still wondering what Steve was trying to show with it

Actually, there's nothing "dodgy" about this one. It's about as solid as a study of that type can be.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree to an extent. As I alluded to above, there is a meaningful and important distinction between the following two statements:

"I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, AND I also survived a mugging."
"Because I train in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I survived a mugging."

The first one may be demonstrably true, based on anecdotal evidence. The second one is entirely speculative and not supported in any way by the anecdotal evidence.

In the same way, one could evaluate the following two statements:

"My doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, AND I recovered from my illness."
"Because my doctor drained 2 gallons of my blood, I recovered from my illness."

Agreed. This is why we have to be skeptical in how we use the kinds of evidence that are available surrounding physical self-defense. There are problems with all of it, so we have to be careful in using all of it, and be careful not to avoid chunks of it that might disagree with our personal notions.

 

[jobo]

Actually, there's nothing "dodgy" about this one. It's about as solid as a study of that type can be.

as solid as it can be is,still distinctly dodgy if your trying to make,any conclusions from it

 

[drop bear]

Have we raised the issue of vested intrest yet?

Self defense instructors, bouncers, leos all have a personal advantage to being seen as a hard man.

And the harder you are perceived the more likely you are to be seen as credible.

Talking a good game is as good as having a good game.

Sgt Paul Cale: Camo' ain't a qualification - Identifying authentic military combatives - Blitz Martial Arts Magazine

 

[jobo]

That's not about having a weapon - it's about being able to keep your head on a swivel, rather than looking for your keys - and to be able to get in your car quickly if there's a threat. You don't need them on approach (walking through the car park), but it's a good idea to have them out early. This is somewhat less an issue for most men (because our keys are easier to find and retrieve than in a woman's purse).

to be honest I just wander round in my own little world, the head on a swivel thing is reserved for if I've parked in a very very dodgy place, it must be really horrible living in the states, I live in one of the toughest cities in the uk and I'm seldom worried for my safety, though a guy got attacked with an axe not 400 yard from my door, but I think it was a revenge thing

 

[drop bear]

yes but i have empiric evidence of my techneque, you have empiric evidence of yours, when we swap stories on the internet they are both just anecdotes

Yeah I do make a conscious effort not to beat people around the head with my street experience.

(unless they really start getting irritating)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no you may not, but if you used a,skill your spent months perfecting, its quite reasonable to give credit to that technique, . if it resulted in the mugger falling to the ground screaming in pain, then its a fair chance it worked and adverted the mugging. That really is empirical evidence

Except you don't actually know the outcome without that training. Just because you used it, that doesn't mean it actually caused the non-mugging. We can make some educated inferences, but that's all they really are.

 

[drop bear]

to be honest I just wander round in my own little world, the head on a swivel thing is reserved for if I've parked in a very very dodgy place

You know what techniques to use if you have parked in a dodgy spot?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes but i have empiric evidence of my techneque, you have empiric evidence of yours, when we,swop stories on the internet they are both just anecdotes

Your use of the axe kick on a mugger isn't actually empirical evidence. It's anecdotal (not measured or controlled). I'd argue it's extremely useful input when we have so many uncontrollable variables, but it's not empirical.