The quote, "using statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support and not for illumination" comes to mind. Data is great for illuminating things, but for

The quote, "using statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support and not for illumination" comes to mind. Data is great for illuminating things, but for arguments, it's usually cherry picked. I do think that writers for the guardian vastly underestimate the intelligence of people who don't agree with them. I generally mistrust statistical arguments because someone forearmed with statistical talking points has usually already signalled their intransigence. Data is nice, but alignment of interests and incentives is better. It reduces to, "according to criteria and data I have selected, your argument does not bear out." It is a passive appeal to the authority of whoever provided the number, and not meaningful or logical information in itself. Logical arguments tend not to persuade anyway, but to say someones argument is illogical because it does not resist a coded illogical premise (appeal to authority fallacy), is certainly a way to make them give up on arguing with you.