"Almost but not quite."

Anything and everything before being established and accepted as fact, scientifically proven as absolute truth, infallible indisputable law has gone through rigorous and tedious observations, discussions and consultations, exchange of notes and opinions, and, yes, anecdotes.

Raw anecdotes, of course, are not scientific.

@AMGT "Is there something specific you think demands more serious investigation and testing that the “old boys” are neglecting?"

What @CarolMadden brings up is one good example - chemo treatment. It does untold damage to the recipient, has a low success rate, but makes huge money for big pharma. By their own admission, they WILL NOT develop treatments for anything that cannot be patented. Pure science? I don't think so. Almost as bad as scientists that work for tobacco companies.

Just a sideline here . . . . there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that many pharmaceutical drugs are damaging , chemo for example, but alternatives are not found because the industry would lose money. Anecdotal evidence is ignored if money is to be made . . . and scientific evidence is often flawed too.

@AMGT - "I’m curious Hominid, why do you see it as “unfair”?"

What's unfair is the bias against new evidence that challenges the status quo. We all like to worship science as the new replacement for religion, but in reality it's a flawed process because of this resistance to change by those of the establishment who don't like things shaken up, and will only pursue research that has the biggest money attached to it.

Scientific research, with all its advantages, has a culture attached to it just like religion does, with its biases, dishonesty, and old boy's club mentality. You wouldn't know this unless you were involved and had friends in the field.

LMAO! It's kind of amusing seeing these responses, as they rather prove your point!

Despite any evidence -- anecdotal or not -- scientists often stick to what they -think- they know. Often, they can come across as know-it-alls. I think this also holds true in all fields of knowledge. I've seen this often with medical doctors.

Anecdotal evidence has its place in opening new doors of inquiry. But the implication to this is that it be -credible- anecdotal evidence. When i read your post, I assumed it was credible anecdotal evidence that you were talking about.

I think the point I didn't clarify enough is that postulation of a theory (the basis for scientific research) is often based on anecdotal evidence. Kinda like everyone getting a sunburn when outside all day. Gee, ya think it's the sun? Let's find out...

Anecdotes lead to data collection. I'm not claiming anecdotal evidence to BE scientific evidence, only a possible path TO it. Which is kinda how it all happens anyway.

The comments here prove my point that there is an unfair bias against new evidence presented by human experience. Where and how else do we make new discoveries? 1) Discovering new facts with new tools like the microscope, and 2) seeing bacteria die on a petri dish when mould invades it.

Turns out the ancient Egyptians were applying bread mould to infections centuries before Fleming developed penecillum. Both followed first-person observations. Sound like anecdotal?

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Did you have specific 'evidence' and a thesus in mind?