Gnomicon 184

If you have not already done so, you may wish to read the
Introduction to Gnomica.

Gnomicon  184
Monday 12 November 2012
Read gnomica 1-150 here!
151     152     153     154     155     156     157     158     159     160     161     162
163     164     165     166     167    168     169     170     171      172     173     174     175     176     177     178     179    180     181     182     183

Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive.
George Bernard Shaw (26 Jul 1856 – 2 Nov 1950)

I once referred to statistics as the ‘witchcraft of the twentieth century’.  But they are a necessary tool for making sense of much of the world we inhabit.  And I do believe that statistics as a discipline is important – certainly marketers do, as do pollsters, physicists and medical researchers.  And among those types there is a great deal of intelligence at work. By the same token I have never forgotten what a math teacher once said in a college calculus class:  it’s not that the mathematics of the statistics is wrong so much as that, even if the assumptions are error-free, they end up being hijacked by every Tom, Dick, and Harry who can get his hands on them in support of this or that favorite argument.

Each is perhaps not unlike Shakespeare’s devil “who can cite scripture for his purpose” (Merchant of Venice I.iii.97), substituting ‘statistics’ for ‘scripture’.

The little bit of Shavian tongue-in-cheek at the top does make a similar point in a more facetious vein.  One can hardly fault its self-evident truth but is, of course, pulled up short upon a moment’s reflection on its self-evident vacuity.  Of course nobody survives, right, and of course everybody eats, right, so of course there must be a statistical correlation between eating and dying.

I guess there is, but is it a helpful correlation?

In fact, is it even a correlation?  Or are we in fact dealing here with a kind of post hoc propter hoc confusion?  A coincidental correlation is hardly a causal one, at least not  necessarily so.  Most people (myself included) know very little if anything about the foundational mathematics underpinning statistics, but (or, perhaps, therefore) the very word – statistics – has acquired an almost religious sense of infallibility, complete – as in the case of any religion — with accompanying cadres of agnostics and atheists.  Think the current back-and-forth in the public – and even scientific — discourse about ‘global warming’ and its reasons and even reality, all based on statistics pro and con!

It all depends on how one ‘cites scripture’ to suit a given purpose … the actual scripture as it were is unassailable.  Consider some other horrors ‘proved’ by statistics here (medical) here (drugs) and here (epidemiology) and then consider that statistics don’t really prove anything at all except what the statistician(s) want(s) to prove to be the case – in and of themselves, they are just a springboard for further leaps.

My point here?

Well, maybe I wasn’t entirely wrong in my earlier analogy to witchcraft, but not entirely correct either.  I guess for me what it amounts to is that whenever I read ‘statistics this and statistics that’ my bullshit sniffer automatically goes on high red alert … and I’ll think twice or more about the latest ‘news’ on the subject at hand.

Do the same!

But … it’s not the math that I suspect, it’s what’s done with the math.

This entry was posted in GNOMICA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s