>>21240857>A collection of anecdotal evidence = DATANo, that's not true. To be considered "data" there has to be a formal collection process, even if the process is random.
I'll give you a practical example: if I claim that you should invest all of your money in lottery tickets, you will (hopefully) call me an idiot. If I say, "no it works! Here's a guy who won $100 mil!!!"
Then you say, "that's anecdotal." Then I show you 10,000 more people who have won the lottery.
See the problem? I am *selecting* lottery winners to show you. *Selection bias*.
If you want data, you should pick x random people, and find out how many of them played the lottery, and how many of them won. That would be data, and that would allow you to know if playing the lottery is a good idea (it's not).
