> Ah no, you’ve misunderstood. Yours is a different argument from mine, though it is similar. You’re talking about the cost of being informed enough to understa

> Ah no, you’ve misunderstood. Yours is a different argument from mine, though it is similar. You’re talking about the cost of being informed enough to understand stuff. I’m talking about trusting the raw data. You're right, I was focusing on false analysis, not false raw data. But perhaps I overlooked it because it's rare to see original raw data cited in anonymous forum. Do you see this? Also, the very fact that it was cited anonymously, and also in an internet forum rather than a serious publication should raise enough alarm bells to distrust it, no? I agree with you that having false data spread through discourse is problematic. It's just not terribly common. What I see more often, is accurate raw data being contorted and misrepresented to promote some viewpoint. Mark Twain had a nice quote... facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.