Simon Chapman has once again reached for a familiar line: emotional testimonials from grateful ex-smokers are the weakest possible form of evidence for the value of vaping.
Whilst I agree with pretty much everything you have written. I take minor exception to the above. An anecdote is correctly called a datum, the plural of datum is data. This was a common catch cry of tobacco control a few years ago, that the plural of data is not data. Demonstrating both their illiteracy and scientific ignorance. Furthermore an anecdote can be instructive.
In my Substack, when I say “anecdotes are not data”, I’m not making a grammatical claim. I’m making an evidentiary one.
Yes, an anecdote is technically a datum. And yes, anecdotes can be instructive. In fact, much of my own writing begins with lived experience and observation. Stories matter. They humanise policy. They expose blind spots. They often reveal what aggregate statistics later confirm.
But the central argument in my Substack is about scale, durability and population impact.
So when I draw a line between anecdote and evidence in the Substack, I’m not dismissing lived experience. I’m arguing that policy should not be built on emotionally compelling stories while ignoring cohort data that tracks what happens over years, not weeks.
"Anecdotes are not data."
Whilst I agree with pretty much everything you have written. I take minor exception to the above. An anecdote is correctly called a datum, the plural of datum is data. This was a common catch cry of tobacco control a few years ago, that the plural of data is not data. Demonstrating both their illiteracy and scientific ignorance. Furthermore an anecdote can be instructive.
You have probably already read this, but for those that haven't, Carl Phillips gives a good insight into how to think scientifically: https://carlvphillips.substack.com/p/to-first-approximation-all-scientific
Thinking scientifically has never been Chapman's forte. Indeed, he is ideologically opposed to it.
In my Substack, when I say “anecdotes are not data”, I’m not making a grammatical claim. I’m making an evidentiary one.
Yes, an anecdote is technically a datum. And yes, anecdotes can be instructive. In fact, much of my own writing begins with lived experience and observation. Stories matter. They humanise policy. They expose blind spots. They often reveal what aggregate statistics later confirm.
But the central argument in my Substack is about scale, durability and population impact.
So when I draw a line between anecdote and evidence in the Substack, I’m not dismissing lived experience. I’m arguing that policy should not be built on emotionally compelling stories while ignoring cohort data that tracks what happens over years, not weeks.
Anecdotes can spark questions.