An interesting (and critical) analysis of the shortcomings of the anecdote-based argument style used by Clay Shirky and others:

> But stories and analogies should be a starting point for thought, and not its terminus. They should be the spark that prompts more analytical, more rigorous investigation and introspection, testing out your idea to see where it fits reality and where it fails. In this essay, and in some of his others (see below) anecdotes are all there is, and that’s just not good enough.
[![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](]( "Reblog this post [with Zemanta]")