Anecdotes, particularly those pertaining to a subjective experience, are almost by definition not-particularly-credible.

I'm sure there's no shortage of people who will swear quite convincingly that faith healing ceremonies are legit. Doesn't mean I would accept their testimony as evidence, though.

How are anecdotes any less credible than scientific data? They are both reports of observation, both subject to error and subjective influence.

As with any other data, the credibility of anecdotes depends on the credibility of the reporter and evidence.

Anecdotes are not adequate for conclusions that require data, but a single credible anecdote is adequate to counter a universal statement.

> a single credible anecdote is adequate to counter a universal statement.

What constitutes a credible anecdote?

What constitutes credible data in a study?

Obviously the more credible the reporter, the more evidence, the more witnesses - the more credible the anecdote.

Are you implying that no story from a layman can be considered credible, but scientists have some magical power that makes them credible?

Data is mismeasured, misinterpreted, misremembered, or simply made up in studies all the time.

> Data is mismeasured, misinterpreted, misremembered, or simply made up in studies all the time.

Scale matters. You're basically arguing that because evidentiary errors occur in scientific studies, that all evidence from all sources is therefore equivalent. That's simply not the case.

However, if you insist on maintaining this stance - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am simply saying that a single counterexample is sufficient to disprove a universal statement. That is logically unassailable.

The only discussion then is around the credibility of the example. Scale is completely irrelevant to disproving a universal statement with a counter example.