4 ms·
You took that sentence out of context. This is the full paragraph: > To be sure, using data to argue about contentious policy issues should always prompt skept
by DrJokepu 13y ago
You took that sentence out of context. This is the full paragraph:
> To be sure, using data to argue about contentious policy issues should always prompt skepticism. It's too easy to focus on particular aspects of any data analysis to prove one's point and overlook those items that may raise more questions.
... which is a very valid point.
- pekk 13y agoSince it's too easy to mess up, and all, the obvious solution is just not to use data. It does literally say that using data "should always prompt skepticism" - not conditionally on whether it was done right or not.
- DrJokepu 13y agoI really think you are misunderstanding that sentence. The author didn't mean what you think it means. His point was that it's not very difficult to come up with just the right data and statistics to support whatever idea you're trying to promote. Data is basically worthless if you can't trust the methodology behind it.
- FedRegister 13y agoIt's a very valid point if you are not doing research but instead doing viewpoint validation. Research is gathering all of the data you can in as much of an unbiased manner as you can and then asking what conclusions you can draw from that data. Viewpoint validation is starting from your conclusion and cherry picking data to support that conclusion. There is no evidence that viewpoint validation is what went on here, and in fact the article mentions later the rest of the data that was gathered and analysis of the points in the data that may contradict this conclusion. However, the writer also spends most of his time saying, "Welp, there's all of this data, but can a brother get a programmer? Nope? INVALID CONCLUSION DOES NOT COMPUTE," which is a pretty shitty way to do journalism.