“I am not talking about some fictional scenarios like the one you painted. I am talking about in the real world today. Statistics are a useful way to analyzing evidence, but if they are contrary to widespread well known anecdotal evidence (even if that evidence has never been formally subject to a study) then the statistics should be rejected. My point is that while generally statistical evidence is superior to anecdotal evidence, that is not always the case.”
I used YOUR scenario. (Why would I randomly bring up chickens? Uuurgh.)
If anecdotal evidence differs from scientifically collected and analyzed data, the first thing to think shouldn’t be, “hey, the stats must be wrong.” The first thing to think should be “so WHY do conditions where I am completely counteract what the statistics say is typical?” Remember, we’re not talking about statistics pulled out of a hat- we’re presuming that someone went out and actually did take a scientific survey. (Which, of course, means that this whole conversation is completely ridiculous as there has been NO such study of the shidduch crisis.)
If such a survey was taken, and this counteracted YOUR PERSONAL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE- well, that just means that you’re in the wrong place. Let’s say that in general, the study shows that 77% of girls get married within 3 years of sem. In your neighborhood, this is only the case in 34% of cases. All this means is that your neighborhood tends to fall more in the 23% of people who do NOT conform with the majority. That’s fine. The question is, WHY? Maybe your neighborhood has some particular issue that’s preventing its girls from getting married.
This is just an illustration, but in general, it’s not a good idea to throw away statistics because they really can be beneficial in narrowing down the problem.
My views on applying this to the shidduch crisis and NASI are above.