3 ms·

All you're saying is that you like your narrative & you intend to stick to it despite any contradicting evidence that may be presented. It's true that data mus

All you're saying is that you like your narrative & you intend to stick to it despite any contradicting evidence that may be presented. It's true that data must be judged for relevance & validity, but to just discard it in preference of your opinion is really egotistical. Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes. So your example of Seattle choosing what you consider to be the wrong solution is not a very persuasive argument against collecting & using data itself.

ozzythecat 4y ago
> All you're saying is that you like your narrative & you intend to stick to it despite any contradicting evidence that may be presented. Not at all. I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument. > Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes. It offers an easily distortable “perspective”, and the same dataset is often misrepresented and twisted for convenience. It’s a recurring theme, especially in leftist politics. Using “data” to spin a narrative and tell people the sky is pink when they can clearly see it’s blue.
- judahmeek 4y ago
  > I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument. This is why reproduction & peer review of methodology are such important steps of the scientific method. You're not supposed to take a single person's word on what data is. This is also why certain fields like psychology have something of a credibility crisis, because so many "discoveries" have not been able to be reproduced. I'm curious though: Can you actually recall specific events of a "leftist" using a false data set or are you just engaging in general slander against your political opponents?

ozzythecat 4y ago

> All you're saying is that you like your narrative & you intend to stick to it despite any contradicting evidence that may be presented. Not at all. I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument. > Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes. It offers an easily distortable “perspective”, and the same dataset is often misrepresented and twisted for convenience. It’s a recurring theme, especially in leftist politics. Using “data” to spin a narrative and tell people the sky is pink when they can clearly see it’s blue.

judahmeek 4y ago
> I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument. This is why reproduction & peer review of methodology are such important steps of the scientific method. You're not supposed to take a single person's word on what data is. This is also why certain fields like psychology have something of a credibility crisis, because so many "discoveries" have not been able to be reproduced. I'm curious though: Can you actually recall specific events of a "leftist" using a false data set or are you just engaging in general slander against your political opponents?