RiverDog wrote:I sincerely apologize for beating this into the ground, but I thought of another example. In my college years as a business administration major, we had classes that us students referred to as Stat I, Stat II, and Stat III, statistics classes with a lot of math. Their 'official' names were Quantitative Analysis I, II, and III. We worked on problems like determining if a set of data fit a straight line, exponential, or parabolic curve.
That's different than say a biology class where most of their experiments involves non quantifiable methods, like testing a dead frog's nervous system by giving it an electrical shock to see if it's muscles contract. That's not a quantifiable, measurable test like we did in my business classes but it is a verification through an observation.
I'm aware of qualitative analysis. Which is why stated it is the weakest form of evidence. It's often used by social scientists to rate perceived, emotionally based experience. It's often used by marketers, politicians, and social scientists to determine perception and emotionally-based reactions to different elements in the world. It is a very weak form of evidence that is much like letting the mob decide what is best absent quantifiable facts.
It's why I don't look at is much of a fact. It's basically a data point on a survey with no measurable value other than your feeling or opinion.
You can technically define it as a fact because qualitative analysis is a thing often given validity by social scientists who I don't have much respect for, but it's about as useful as the happiness index international organizations use to measure how good a nation is. It's a terrible form of comparative evidence. Which is why I don't often use it. I much prefer quantifiable, measurable evidence like life expectancy, wait times as you supplied, surgical outcomes, and other quantifiable measures for almost anything. It's a much better way than anecdotal or emotionally-based evidence as these surveys, polls, and the like supply.
