On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:14:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:50:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

All science is based on the summation of anecdotes.

Heck, guess what, you're wrong.

Tell me any science that is not based on individual observations, by
individuials,

Or groups of individuals? Most science does have a role for observation.

Theoretical physics for one is not based on observation.

Even where science is based upon observation, the use of observation does
not make the evidence anecdotal, since scientific evidence is amenable to
statistical analysis and anecdotal evidence is not.

What the proponents of dowsing have been giving here is a testimonial,
absent of evidence, absent of analysis, absent of statistics. When dowsing
is examined within the confines of the scientific method, utilising
double-blind studies with appropriate controls, dowsing cannot be shown to
work better than random chance, which rather precludes further analysis.

all of which could be classed as anecdotal.

Umm no, you appear to misunderstand the term or to be willfully misusing
it.