About the "the plural of anecdote IS data" bullshit, I wanted also to comment on Marc Beckoff about looking for repetability and consistancy.
In the ufo phenomena, people argue sometimes that the phenomenum is "consistant", because you can find some "consistancy" between some of the testimonies.
2 remarks:
First of, often the consistency is in the eye of the beholder. If you look for consistency, you'll find some (but you forgot all the inconsistencies in the process).
Second, in fortean phenomena, consistencies can be explain by some process creating de phenomenum. That does'nt prove the fact that the phenomenum is paranormal.
For exemple, you can have a subset of "consistant" sightings of lights in the sky, because all this witness saw helicopters (I'm thinking of the Beligian ufo wave here). So the consistency doesn't prove that you're trully in front of alien spacecraft.
So, to resume my point, "the plural of anecdote IS data" is bullshit, and thinking that consistency and replication are enough for transforming anecdotal testimonies in data are even more bullshit.
Thanks again for a very entertaining show.
