Our favorite John Myste at John Myste Responds takes a well deserved rest from attacking the intellectual dishonesty of a mendacious blogger, who turns out to be ... well ... me, actually, to contribute his thoughts here at FairAndUNbalanced at the dishonesty of the Apostle Paul and, before him, Jesus of Nazareth.
At Why do we have to do this, Sir?, our friend, erstwhile spiritual leader disguised as middle school teacher, investigates angels through the thought processes of teenagers
PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, got me to thinking. I've always liked the Stones, still going strong after all these years. I don't know how Fred and Barney do it. Anyway, Myers has scheduled a podcast about Creationism. I sense a bit of skepticism.
It turns out that Ryan at Secular Ethics was singularly responsible for this week's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. Ryan would be quite justified in expressing a degree of pride, but he remains self-deprecating about it. Ryan is also an increasingly generous contributor at Fair and UNbalanced.com. Although he is too modest to mention it himself, nobody has ever seen Ryan and Superman at the same time. Coincidence? I don't think so.
James Wigderson begins with a light slap at Nancy Pelosi, repeating a frequent conservative Breitbart reediting of a remark she made about Obamacare during the amendment process. James continues with a variation on Justice Anthony Kennedy's slippery slope speculation that government will make him eat broccoli, which he doesn't like. James is afraid that agents will take away his stash of Snickers bars. I'm with James on this outrage. Forget death panels. They can have my Snickers when they pry it from my cold dead lips.
Infidel 753 does a Dewey vs Truman accounting of initial wrong reports on Obamacare. Jean Schmidt (R-Lameduck) was recorded reacting to the wrong reports. A video shows her launching into the upper stratosphere. As radio signals reach her with a news correction, she explodes in fury. Remnants can still be seen in the evening sky from most of North America.
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame has video of the irrational exuberance at the wrong news just before Representative Schmidt received a corrected version, got sprinkled with Holy water, and melted into an angry pool of boiling rubber. Okay, so mixed-metaphors-are-us. I'm getting old. We all live with it.
Mark at News Corpse watches the frantic efforts of FoxNews to recover from their gleeful initial reports on the overturning of Obamacare. They quickly reported on the sharp downward reaction of stock prices in reaction, but didn't know what to do when, minutes later, stocks surged and surged and surged. Up 278 points by close of business. Did I mention Jean Schmidt?
T. Paine, at Saving Common Sense, laments that Obamacare is legal. Justice Kagan had been a professional advocate for Obamacare so she should have recused herself. She wasn't and she shouldn't. Ginsburg hates the Constitution and should have been impeached. She doesn't and shouldn't. All sides in oral arguments insisted the mandate was not a tax. True and so what? Saying something is so don't make it so.. Obamacare will explode the deficit. It won't. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the opposite. And on and on.
Vixen Strangely at Rumproast examines the unusual decision by Congressional Republicans that Attorney General Eric Holder holds them in contempt. As I understand their logic, they have no evidence of any wrongdoing. Since they know there was wrongdoing, despite the lack of evidence, that lack of evidence means that Attorney General Holder is engaged in a coverup. The lack of evidence of wrongdoing is the evidence of wrongdoing.
Jack Jodell, friend of the working blogger, has an angry piece at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST chronicling Darrel Issa's refusal to allow testimony that would contradict conspiracy theories. Republicans in this Congress operate by ratchet rules. Evidence is allowed only in one direction.
Nancy Hanks at The Hankster channels Nomi Azulay of the New York Times, making a case that voters would participate more if elections were non-partisan.
- The Heathen Republican compares President Obama's popularity the moment he took office with his support today. He finds that support has fallen in every demographic. I dunno. I suspect every President starts at an extraordinarily high point that will seldom be attained again. Plus, Heathen uses charts to illustrate his data, which will horrify John Myste. And he does it as an advocate for a point of view, which makes him intellectually dishonest. I would not have believed that it demonstrated anything but intellectual diligence until my friend John explained it to me.
Trackback address for this post
Once again, charting is not dishonest. Charting your evidence and ignoring opposing charts that tell the other side of the story, then labeling your opinion as "truth" and accusing those who disagree with you of "epistemic closure" is intellectually dishonest.
Addressing both sides of an issue is intellectually honest.
I think I had broccoli on pizza once.
Deep fried isn't bad, either.
What I don't understand is why the use of charts to present that data provokes you. When Heathen produces a graph to show the data that he believes will back his point of view, I think it clarifies what he is saying.
I don't begrudge him his failure to produce data, in chart form or in any other way, that would show the success of Obama's policies, for example, since he disagrees with those policies. I think it is wretchedly unfair for you or me or anyone to judge him on that basis.
If he knowingly produces data that is not data, but rather is contrary to fact, that would be dishonest. As far as I know, Heathen never purposefully does that.
So what's with the obsession with charts?
I said there were pro-abortion mandates within the Obamacare law. See here:
My "obsession" is that liberal sites produce liberally biased charts to prove something and then they say it did prove the thing. Conservatives sites do exactly the same thing. While each side show their facts, they do not address the facts produced by the other sides opposing charts. How can we call chart data fact if it is not circumspect?
But my question is why you focus on charts, rather than on all "dishonest" advocacy.
Your answer, as I read it, is that you do not focus on charts, just those charts that are too dishonest to present all sides.
I do have to acknowledge that you accomplish a completely consistent level of clarity.
Charts are generally considered by chartists to be "the facts," as if they are circumspect and the source data the other side ignores. Yet the chartist ignores other "facts," meaning charts, that tell the opposite story.
Charts almost always follow opinion. They are attempts to justify ones opinion (in my opinion).
John, your willingness to criticize the fact that he presents his opinion as if it is "the truth" rather validates, I think, my earlier characterization of your position. See it here. Feel free to tell me I am wrong.
The objection you both seem to have with charts and graphs is that they are inordinately persuasive. To my mind, that is a good reason to use them, although clarity is an even better value. It is no more dishonest than to present any form of evidence or to choose one phrase rather than another for its potential to convince.
Objectivity and balance are desirable in some contexts, even sometimes outside of a laboratory or an academic hall, but it is hardly the basis of the sort of moralistic judgment I suspect is being expressed.
It seems you are not paying attention. That is not what I ever said. I said that my objection was that you label the data truth, and thus your opinion truth, without reporting the data that tells the opposite story by people like The Heathen Republican, and which is always labeled truth.
To my mind, that is a good reason to use them, although clarity is an even better value.
When you present data you call truth and leave out equally convincing opposing data, that is not clarity. It is obfuscation.
“It is no more dishonest than to present any form of evidence or to choose one phrase rather than another for its potential to convince.”
Any “evidence” you label as truth and from this place label your opinion as “truth” and that you use to label those who disagree closed-minded, is equal. Rarely do I see such a strategy used with anything other than charts and stats, though. I won’t say it does not happen.
“Objectivity and balance are desirable in some contexts, even sometimes outside of a laboratory or an academic hall, but it is hardly the basis of the sort of moralistic judgment I suspect is being expressed.”
I am not trying to challenge your moral integrity. I do not feel it should be challenged. I challenge the use of a chart that “proves” Keynesian Theory is the “truth,” being used in the absence of available charts that show Keynesian policy “has failed every time it was tried.” If you are going to research and produce the “truth,” I would assume naturally that both charts would be produced, and the one you don’t like refuted. Or, are you claiming that only charts that support your philosophy exist and the other charts don’t exist (since they could not possibly be true)?
You do not understand correctly. Presenting a strong opinion forcefully is fine, unless you intentionally pick a subset of data, call it the truth, and therefore claim your opinion is the truth.
I have argued forcefully that I had the truth only my side, such as with S & P downgrade, and with the ruling of Judge Hudson on ObamaCare. But I only do it using primary data (and all of it). I do not pick something that corroborates my opinion, call that the truth, and claim that anyone who disagrees with me is therefore closed-minded.
You are against charts because they are persuasive. You are against advocates who use charts persuasively because they believe their assertions are the truth. Since they decline to present what they do not believe to be true in as fair and favorable manner, you judge them to be intellectually dishonest.
At the core seems to be a distaste for belief in much of anything.
Your resentment is against those who think they are right. That is how I characterized your position here. Perhaps I missed your response.
So, it would seem that the crux of your rebuttal is that you get to decide what I believe and why I believe it and I do not, and you have dictated that I am against charts because they are persuasive instead of one sided.
Since you reject my philosophy in favor of your decision about what my philosophy is, you leave me no choice but to end the discussion here. We are at a stand still. I will not think or state what you need me to believe and state, and you will not accept that I don't think what you need me to think.
Therefore I concede to you the philosophy you ascribe to me is flawed.
I do have a distaste for faith in something as truth with no logical reason for drawing the conclusion. It is the single most divisive thing in
American thought to do, and those who feel they know more in the absence of data needed to "know," are the ones who block any forward motion.
Generally, only those who seek the truth can find it.
You should not blame yourself for the concession. I'm sure you appreciate the accurate restatement of an opposing position. I know this because we all model this practice after you:
Well, perhaps not all. T. Paine thinks you do not adequately represent his view.
We know that cannot be true because you would have condemned as intellectually dishonest a presentation that did not contain an exhaustive examination of all views.
In contrast, my usual approach is to present my charts, explain where I found the data, explain my methodology, followed by a section clearly labeled as "comments" or "analysis." For my readers, I think this makes it clear that the data is the data, and I develop opinions based on the data (as presented in chart form).
I have never claimed to know the "facts" or "truth" as represented in a chart. I always frame my commentary as opinion.
John, I defy you to find an instance from Burr or me where we use the words "fact" or "truth" in reference to a chart we've created. Your entire argument is based on a false premise of your own invention.
I think you get part of John's position. It is hard to get him to acknowledge that his objection goes beyond the use of charts. The focus on visual aids seems so absurd to me that perhaps I project a more rational view onto him than his reasoning deserves.
In the absence of clarity on his part, I think it is fair to speculate. He believes the use of evidence is dishonest unless every opposing view is presented, along with the evidence that might tend to support it.
Since that is impractical in most cases, he is then justified, not only in the rarity of his own use of evidence to support his view, but in his attack on those who do the research he despises.
It is possible his hand flutters about charts come from something other than a conviction that a gentleman must never get his fingernails dirty with such labor. It is hard to get a glimmer of anything else from what he produces.
Easier to hold one's nose at The Heathen Republican for actually entering the arena. Evidence favoring a viewpoint is so sweaty, you know.
Jim, who uses a chart to support his belief that the stimulus saved the economy, does not understand that the chart does not support his belief. It simply shows that the economy improved after the stimulus. In short: the chart is not evidence, but he portrays it as such.
Similarly, a chart that shows that I consistently eat a snack after nightfall is not evidence that nightfall causes me to eat a snack. The potential causal link between the two events remains unexplored and alternative explanations exist.
As Jim develops an explanation of how the stimulus could have saved the economy (the causal link), his overall argument becomes more reasonable because it ceases to rely on a fallacy. As he includes more charts, his argument also becomes more persuasive. However, his argument will remain weak as long as he fails to take alternative explanations and data into account. If Jim is interested in the truth, then he should not be content to simply have one working hypothesis among many--especially if his beliefs affect other people through his behavior. Conviction is not enough. And if Jim is not really interested in the truth, then it is inappropriate for him to try to convince others that he is right.
The other point that John and I make is that Jim's belief precedes the chart. You seem uninterested in addressing this problem. Do you acknowledge that it is a problem at all? Or would you say that research and debate should be about fun and personal validation and that we should just wait for the truth to emerge on its own? That is the sense that I got from your last message to me.
It is difficult for me to understand why these points vex you. They are really just warnings against confirmation bias. If you simply feel that you have been unfairly accused of such bias, then you should say so and provide examples. If you are caught up in the problem of charts in particular, then consider what John said in this very thread:
"Rarely do I see such a strategy used with anything other than charts and stats, though. I won’t say it does not happen."
This is why I dismissed your replacement of "charts" with "comic books." People do not use comic books for such a purpose, but, if they did, we could level the same criticism at them.
However, it was I--not John--who additionally argued that charts are persuasive, which is why people like to use them. That is fine. The trouble is that their persuasive power is often greater than their explanatory power. ("The numbers don't lie.") Those who understand this and acknowledge their biases have a responsibility to use such data appropriately. That people so often do not suggests that they either do not recognize their biases or that they do not care.
If Jim simply listed his data points in order, you would have no objection? In January 2009 the level as 7.01. In February 2009 it was 7.02. In March 2009 it was 7.05 ...
Seems to me the only accomplishment in discarding the charts you dislike would be to make Jim's point muddy. The contradiction might eventually be made clear to you as you worked your way through, especially if it occurred to you to put it into chart form.
I'm not even to the point of disagreement with you. I'm not to the point of seeing why you dislike a visual aid as a matter of principle.
By the way, I am trying not to be too aggressive, but I keep realizing I have.
I have deep respect for both of you for two reasons:
1. You are the two top, one conservative and one liberal, representatives of your ideologies that I know. I respect that, even if I consider the methodologies suspect.
2. You are the two top representatives of the your philosophies that I know. When you argue your philosophical positions with philosophy (as opposed to claiming false proofs for them), you are both very challenging, and I utterly respect that, as I know at their cores, your positions are almost entirely philosophical.
I respect both your minds and your integrity immensely and I hope I have not indicated otherwise.
You are both full of confirmation bias and you both cull "facts" routinely, but I suspect not intentionally. It is very frustrating for me as a fan.
Discarding charts in favor of an aesthetically displeasing list of the same data is not better. But remember:
"Rarely do I see such a strategy used with anything other than charts and stats, though. I won’t say it does not happen."
Chart abuse is noteworthy because it is so common. It is common because charts have persuasive power and tempt presenters. They have persuasive power and tempt presenters because humans have a problem with confirmation bias.
Other forms of data abuse are also possible and are also typically a result of confirmation bias. No one is arguing otherwise.
You also worry about their effect on those who use them. Presumably they do not encourage the proper degree of introspective skepticism.
That may be less a philosophical objection than a personal idiosyncrasy. There could be as much validity to my negative reaction to the sprinkling of Latin phraseology into an argument. It lends too much authority, makes an argument artificially persuasive, and tempts a presenter into believing his viewpoint is more in line with classically sound logic than it really is.
If I reject an argument that contains the phrase "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" for that reason, I think you would be wise to regard it as my personal bias rather than any well considered personal philosophy.
Same thing might apply to a skepticism about large words. Like "idiosyncrasy."
I'm for the revealing of data you think supports your view. Charts tend to make that clearer. Of course, that clarity also exposes you to rebuttal. Presumably with countering data.
John, as you may by now realize, holds the entire process with some disdain. He doesn't like evidence, unless that evidence is a complete study of all possible relevant data.
John holds an opinion completely apart from conformity to any set of facts. His arguments tend to reduce themselves to a singularity.
He backs his opinion with ... well ... just because.
That is, of course, malarkey.
I back my philosophical opinions with philosophy and back my scientific / factual opinions with actual facts. An example was my "opinion" of the S & P 500 downgrade, where I cited the primary data and rejected all else, or my opinion on the ruling of Judge Hudson, where I used his published opinion to make my case, not quotes from what people said about the published opinion, and I his published opinion, coupled with the history of his own court, and his own words primarily to refute it.
See the difference? If I am discussing something fact-based, I use the source (actual facts or source data), not an arbitrary selection from a pool of competing facts; and if I try to make a philosophical case, I use logic, not an arbitrarily selected set of "facts" from a pool of competing facts.
I only call facts “facts.” I do not call my opinion facts and I do not then claim those who do not share my opinion to be ignoring the facts or to be “epistemologically closed.” See the difference?
Let's try again.
John holds an opinion that he describes as malarkey.
Okay, okay, that's a little out of context.
Actually, what you object to was a conclusion. It was prefaced by this:
"John, as you may by now realize, holds the entire process with some disdain. He doesn't like evidence, unless that evidence is a complete study of all possible relevant data."
I suppose taking arguments out of context can happen regardless of primary evidence and quite apart from visual aids.
I am not at all convinced that the rhetorical power of Latin phraseology and large words is comparable to that of charts, but, if one uses them because he expects that they will more effectively persuade his audience, then he is probably guilty of manipulation--even deception. (One exception is if his audience expects such language, in which case he is simply trying to stay relevant.) Such a person is typically less interested in determining truth than he is in convincing others to accept his beliefs.
If Jim calls his chart evidence for his belief even though he is aware that the chart does not really support his belief, then he is guilty of the same dishonesty. He is using the chart to manipulate, otherwise he would not use the irrelevant chart at all. If he is not aware that the chart does not really support his belief, then he is simply ignorant.
In any case, you have misrepresented my position. It is indeed ridiculous to reject an argument simply because it contains the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc," but I am not arguing that one should dismiss an argument simply because it includes charts. I am arguing that one should be intellectually honest (argue what he believes for the reasons for which he believes it) and thorough (not present a set of data as evidence when it is not and not avoid data that hurt his argument). The part of Jim's argument that relies on charts is neither; therefore, that part can and should be dismissed.
In short: the problem is not charts, but how often and poorly people use them in their arguments. I would rail against the abuse of other forms of data as well, but charts--not comic books, not Latin, not big words--are the common form that data takes when one wishes to make a point with it.
And if I have some bias, it is against dishonest rhetoric: that which lends an argument more power than it deserves by its actual merits. I hope that others share this appropriate bias.
We are back to resisting charts because they are persuasive. But we are now adding that they are used dishonestly, which is to say they do not actually support the proposition they are being used to support.
I suggest that this is a valid objection to any argument or dataset or quotation or Latin phrase that is presented as supportive when the advocate is aware that it is not, in fact, supportive.
Your argument that the use of a chart is more suspect because it is persuasive seems to me a personal bias, having little to do with anything other than personal preference.
I haven't seen anything suggesting otherwise. You don't like dishonesty. You don't like a tool that makes dishonesty more persuasive.
You are a logician. That doesn't actually follow as any sort of solid foundation for the anti-chart position, does it?
It's fine to have a personal preference. Lots of us do.
It is indeed dishonest to use "any argument or dataset or quotation or Latin phrase that is presented as supportive when the advocate is aware that it is not, in fact, supportive." Once again: no one has disputed this.
However, charts and other data sets are not comparable to the other items in this list of rhetorical devices. They are potentially real support where the others are not. They are much more commonly and effectively used to persuade others. Most importantly, their selection (cherry picking) is subject to confirmation bias, such that we do not even realize that we are wrong to use them. This is the central point! You do not have to be intentionally deceptive to be mislead others. Charts just happen to be one of the primary tools by which both the malevolent and the well-intentioned lead others astray. If the nature and power of big words were swapped with the nature and power of charts, I would be arguing about big words instead.
I assume that you acknowledge that Jim's chart does not support his belief. I hope that you would also say that he should not use the chart. (It is not evidence, so it is irrelevant. It is not his reason for belief, so it is a waste of time.) If so, you must acknowledge that this is true in all similar cases. I argue that most cases are similar because our beliefs tend to precede the data and the data is usually far from complete.
I have continued this debate mostly because I have perceived in your words a strange resistance to circumspection. You seem to want to defend your use of charts even if they are not your reasons for belief, do not genuinely support your argument, and do not tell the full story. I really do not care whether or not you are more wary of the persuasive power of charts than of the persuasive power of big words as long as you acknowledge that using charts in an argument is often disingenuous and that we should not do so when that is the case. If you can acknowledge that, then I will move on. My argument that chart- or otherwise data-based rhetoric deserves special attention is not very important. Whether or not you have a problem with Jim's argument is.
I use absurd examples because that is the nature of the reductio ad absurdum argument, as you will recognize. You seem to reject the absurdum part because it is ... well ... absurd, and let the reductio part sort of float away.
The resistance I perceive is to what seems obvious to me: your distaste for charts is a personal preference. You do not like them because they are persuasive. Why you would dislike persuasion itself is a mystery to me.
I can imagine a hypothetical person disliking persuasion out of conviction that there is no truth. I can imagine that sort of person believing that anything that persuades must be inherently dishonest.
It is an unfortunate part of imagination that it sometimes uncontrollably lurches toward the very sad.
You do not seem to understand reductio ad absurdum. Here is an actual and valid example:
"Raising taxes always brings in more money."
Person 2, using reductio ad absurdum:
"Then we should expect to get the most money if we raise taxes to 100%. That is obviously not true, so your claim is false."
It involves taking a claim to its logical conclusions to show that it is absurd. You did not do that. You tried to swap "comic books" or "Latin terms" or "big words" with "charts" (data) in my position. I explained why they are not interchangeable. You ignored and continue to ignore my explanation, which involves confirmation bias, degrees of persuasion, etc.
"The resistance I perceive is to what seems obvious to me: your distaste for charts is a personal preference. You do not like them because they are persuasive. Why you would dislike persuasion itself is a mystery to me."
Honest persuasion is fine. Dishonest or disingenuous persuasion is not. Do you acknowledge a distinction between the two?
Kate's conservative peers resent her liberal positions because they think that she does not take their arguments into account. In a conversation with them, she acknowledges their arguments and the merits thereof. They open up to her own arguments.
Kate has encouraged people who were initially biased against her arguments to let go of their bias. She has used her persuasiveness honestly; the power of her arguments is still based on their own merits instead of manipulative rhetoric. She has simply led her peers to let down their distrustful defenses.
For an example of dishonest persuasion, just recall Jim. His chart is a tool to persuade, which is acceptable in some circumstances. However, in his circumstances, the chart fails to support his argument, presents only a small part of the relevant data, and, despite what he says, is not his actual reason for belief. This is bad because it is intellectually dishonest. If he understands these problems and continues his behavior, he is also just plain dishonest, which is also bad.
So, now that you understand (I hope) my position on persuasion, you should be able to understand why I am more opposed to those methods that tend to be effortlessly disingenuous and persuasive than I am to those methods that are not. Just because Latin terms can be manipulative in some cases does not mean that all forms of manipulation are equal in every significant way.
If you continue to ignore entire paragraphs--or even entire posts--in which I explain all of this to you and asks you questions, I will have to end the debate. I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that Jim should not have used his chart to make his argument. I would be relieved to hear that you also oppose disingenuous arguments and recognize that arguments based on charts are often so. But I am not sure that you even make it to the end of each of my comments before you respond.
As I understand it, Reductio ad Absurdum may take any of several forms. I had to do some research for a piece a while back, and came across a readable set of 7 examples, all variants, posted by Nicholas Rescher of the University of Pittsburgh. He suggested sources that would yield more examples. I looked back and found it again:
All involve applying the same logic as a proposition to achieve an absurdity, thus discrediting the proposition. Rescher suggests the reverse, proving a proposition by discrediting opposition to the proposition.
Most of Rescher's examples involve self-contradiction or logical inconsistencies, but I think you might agree that correctly insisting that a conclusion is absurd does not disprove a reductio argument. Rather it reinforces it.
Actually, I should not ridicule the bias against charts, since I genuinely do not understand it. I seek to provoke a coherent explanation, so far unsuccessfully.
You may ascribe that to my obtuseness, if you would like, although I hope you will accept that the obtuseness is not willful.
Your objection actually, really, in fact, seems to me the equivalent of opposing the use of a hammer to build a house because a hammer was used across town to commit a horrible murder. That really isn't a reductio argument as much as a confession that I do not see your point.
Hard to disagree with what appears to the untutored, which is to say me, to be obscure to the point of invisibility.
Perhaps you will understand if I speak in your metaphor.
"Your objection actually, really, in fact, seems to me the equivalent of opposing the use of a hammer to build a house because a hammer was used across town to commit a horrible murder."
Here is a better metaphor:
I oppose the attempt to construct a house using solely a hammer. It is not possible. The materials and other tools that are necessary are absent. As your gather these materials and tools, you gradually become more able to construct a house. (This corresponds to the limited nature of the data.)
I also oppose the lie that a house has been built with a hammer when it was actually built with different tools. (This corresponds to pretending that the charts are the reason for belief when they are not.)
And I oppose the shoddy use of hammers. (This corresponds to abusing the data.)
Jim's argument, as I presented it, is simple: a chart shows that the economy improved after the stimulus, therefore the stimulus is responsible for improving (or saving, if we want to make the argument even worse) the economy. If the argument is his house, then Jim would be lying about the materials that he used and would have misused the hammer. Moreover, it is the sort of house that would fall down under a huff and a puff.
Just as we should use hammers responsibly, we should use data responsibly. But be aware that we are generally more likely to unintentionally abuse data and deceive ourselves with it than we know.
My response, and I suspect yours, is to point out that the data presented doesn't actually support a given proposition and explain why. "No fair using a chart" strikes me as a response you would decline to use, rejecting it as inadequate.
I can imagine a few other debaters resorting to some equivalent, however.
After the data has been presented, that is all that we can do. But it is better to stop that before it happens. We are better off with fewer people who jump to conclusions based on limited data and confirmation bias and pretend that the data is their reason for belief when it is not. That we would save time by no longer needing to point out such problems is only one benefit.
Leave a comment
|« Introduction - We Are The Reason||Cynical Constitutionality of Obamacare by T. Paine »|