In reality, statistics should be trusted based on source, method and importance.
A survey of preferred ice-cream flavours by an ice-cream company can be trusted easily, even if the wording and method are a bit loose. An analysis of a potentially billion dollar drug requires FAR more scrutiny, even from multiple reliable sources. Between these 2 extremes is a spectrum of trust.
Unfortunately, most people don’t do well with shades of grey. If some statistics can’t be trusted, then none can. It’s all false news (until it happens to agree with their preconceived views).
Because statistics is a relative unknown to many people. Until people have a good grounding in statistics then they often have to rely on an appeal to authority.
But blind trust in everything else never breaks?
In reality, statistics should be trusted based on source, method and importance.
A survey of preferred ice-cream flavours by an ice-cream company can be trusted easily, even if the wording and method are a bit loose. An analysis of a potentially billion dollar drug requires FAR more scrutiny, even from multiple reliable sources. Between these 2 extremes is a spectrum of trust.
Unfortunately, most people don’t do well with shades of grey. If some statistics can’t be trusted, then none can. It’s all false news (until it happens to agree with their preconceived views).
But my point is, why does that “all or nothing” standard apply to statistics, but not to news channels, newspapers, internet articles, etc.
Because statistics is a relative unknown to many people. Until people have a good grounding in statistics then they often have to rely on an appeal to authority.