There can be many confounding factors in a particular instance. Correlation does not prove causation.
I've had personal experience with thinking X caused Y and only realizing years later that there was some unaccounted for variable that I had been unaware of at the time.
> There can be many confounding factors in a particular instance. Correlation does not prove causation.
Yes, that is a source of reliability errors in associating cause with effect in anecdote, which is why I was discussing what was possible even in the semi-ideal case that such reliability errors were not a concern. Obviously, realistically, neither case can be made by anecdote, but anecdote can't even contradict one side of that discussion, because something not occurring in one case isn't inconsistent with it occurring sometimes, while something occurring even once is inconsistent with it never occurring.
If it's unreliable, it's unreliable. Setting up hypotheticals where you can rely on it so as to suggest that my unreliable anecdote is inferior to their unreliable anecdote is not a good faith tactic of debate.
I've had personal experience with thinking X caused Y and only realizing years later that there was some unaccounted for variable that I had been unaware of at the time.