evidence based on stories

Yes, they can be. Social stories often draw on research and real-life experiences to provide useful information and support.

Yes, they are. Social stories have been shown to be effective in many cases and are based on research and practical experience.

Some extraterrestrial life stories are based on what people claim as evidence. For example, UFO sightings are often reported with descriptions and sometimes even photos or videos. However, many of these can be explained by natural phenomena or human - made objects. But there are also some scientific findings like the discovery of exoplanets in the habitable zone which give some basis for the possibility of extraterrestrial life, but not direct evidence of extraterrestrial beings yet.

Advantages of evidence based on stories include its memorability. People tend to remember stories better than abstract figures. It can also be a powerful tool for persuasion. A well - told story can sway opinions. On the flip side, such evidence can be influenced by biases. The storyteller may have a particular agenda or perspective that colors the story. Moreover, it may not be generalizable. Just because something happened in one story doesn't mean it will occur in all similar situations.

The key elements include accurate data. For example, facts about a particular social situation. It also involves reliable sources. Such as research studies or expert opinions. And it should be relevant to the social context it aims to address.

To evaluate evidence based on stories, first consider the context in which the story was told. Was it in a situation where there was pressure to tell a certain way? Then, analyze the details. Are they specific enough? Vague stories are less reliable. Additionally, see if the story can be replicated in some way. If it's a one - off event that can't be reproduced, it's hard to use as strong evidence. Finally, look at the overall plausibility. Does it seem too good to be true? If so, be cautious.

One limitation is that stories can be subjective. The person telling the story may have biases or a particular agenda, which can distort the evidence. For example, in a courtroom, a witness might tell a story that is influenced by their personal feelings towards the defendant. Another limitation is that stories are often anecdotal. Just because something happened in one instance doesn't mean it's a generalizable truth. A story about one person's success with a particular diet doesn't prove that the diet will work for everyone. Also, stories can lack scientific rigor. There may be no control group, no measurement of variables, etc.

Well, evidence based on story often has the power to engage emotions. People are more likely to remember a story than just cold facts. In research, anecdotal evidence (which is a type of evidence based on story) can sometimes lead to new hypotheses. For instance, if a patient tells a doctor a story about how a certain natural remedy seemed to work for them, it might inspire the doctor to look into it further, even if it's not yet scientifically proven.

Well, cryptozoology is often seen as fictional. Most of the supposed creatures it investigates lack reliable proof and are more the stuff of myths and legends.