Why statistics spouted in debates are meaningless

[jonks]

http://www.factcheck.org/mitt_...ys_cherry_orchard.html

Factcheck is an independent site that, well, fact checks various statements politicians make, and really gets in gear during election season when they cover the whoppers in political ads.

The above link covers the spat between Giuliani and Romney at their last debate where each accused the other of raising taxes while each claimed to lower their own jurisdiction's taxes.

Each spins the numbers so hard it takes PHds with MBAs who have to contact each candidate's campaign to clarify things. What chance does an ordinary person watching have? Blah.

And if I can anticipate and head off the inevitable rejoinder, this is merely an example, and of course the dems spin their numbers at debates just as hard. I'm picking on politicos here, not any party.

 

[Bowfinger]

It is easy to lie with numbers and statistics because most people are really incompetent with math.

 

[w3stfa11]

Yep, it almost seems like there ought to be a "citation needed" when they claim something.
http://xkcd.com/285/

 

[ScottMac]

Citation doesn't really help, other than to establish the context of the source. It'd be up to the listener to decide if it's a credible source or not.

You can make any statemnet true with the proper citation ... i.e., 'According to the Flat Earth Society, the Earth is Flat" .... that's a true statement (I suppose) it's not dependent on whether the Earth is really flat or not, the statement says "According to the Flat Earth Society" and as long as they think promote that point, it's a true statemnet.

Counting on your average voting type to actually investigate the source is likely to be folly, so they cited statement would fly (as they do now) and remain predominantly unchallenged (as most are now), by the MSM.

So, when they are challenged, the side that made the statement just claims bias/prejudice on the side that challenges the statement .... pretty much the same stuff you see here at a more professional level ... and it still boils down to what the recipient wants to believe, is likely to believe, and what they use for their own verification / authenticating sources (assuming they don't just ignore it completely and vote for the candidate with the {pick an attribute}).

Really no difference to the current system.

 

[First]

You don't have to be an MBA or PhD to figure it out. If you take a basic statistics course and read up online, frankly, you could figure out they were bluffing their stats. The Census Bureau is a great resource too, btw.

 

[techs]

They're both Republicans which means they will increase spending, borrow huge sums to pay for the spending and give a huge tax cut.
Nuff said.