Anecdotes mean a lot to the people who tell them. They wouldn't remember them or at least not tell them if it was different. My anecdotes also mean a lot to me. If an anecdote is told to make the listeners understand where the speaker comes from and what moves them they serve a vital function. To challenge any story told for such a reason and to compare it with facts would serve no other function than to destroy trust and understanding in a personal relationship.

But quite often a line is crossed: the narrators make theories about the world (see e.g., Daylia) in a more general sense. That is the moment from which on the theories are open to debate and also the evidence presented for such theories is a matter open to scrutiny. This of course includes the anecdotes if they are offered as evidence.

This is the moment in which the misunderstanding between the anecdote teller and a doubter begins. The doubter offers other explanations or theories and to do that completely (s)he has also to point to other ideas how it might be explained that a certain anecdotal report has been told.

One only has to look into the old thread(s) to see that just a hint that the recollection might be not accurate or might be slanted by the theories dear to the teller is met with outrage. The anecdote teller can be hurt deeply and feels not be taken seriously. (S)he never realises in that frame of mind that any (or at least most of the) critique is directed at the interpretation and the inferences and not at the experience as such.

How much a recollection is influenced by the theories we hold is seen easily in my example above. I have said that I like a theory, Ebbie has made an inference what that should/could mean and her recollection of the episode is slanted in the direction of her inference. She does not remember what has happened but what her inference was. Everybody does that, of course including me. One personal anecdote (based on more than one experience) about that: When I watch the presentation of a stage magician together with somebody else I like to ask these people what they have seen. Since I know many of the tricks, I know what to watch for. Those who do not know recall many details completely wrong, for they are following the wrong theory.

That's one of the main reasons why anecdotes are never treated as proof in science. They are not discarded, that would be the wrong approach. A good theory, for instance for near death experiences or OOBEs, must also be able to explain what gives rise to the many reports of similar experiences (floating, light, tunnel, and all that). "It ain't so" is a very stupid and unimaginative way of approaching the problem.

I wish it wasn't so but my experience is that people telling anecdotes from their lives pointing in their thinking to one particular view of the world, perceive that I attack them personally when I only point to other possibilities. I see that they close their minds even to the possibility of error or another explanation. "That's my experience and you can't tell me what I have seen" or "direct experience is better than any theories" is in my eyes just a way to close one's mind against alternative interpretations.

You can only gain by being open minded.

BTW, I know the rules of chess and have played some games when I was young, but the last time must have been about 20 years ago.

Wolfgang (who prefers being called a nitpicker to being a nitwit)