Submission + - How the Media and You Are Misled by False Data (thefiscaltimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Edward Morrissey writes at the Fiscal Times, "The most obfuscating and misleading arguments made in debate of any kind usually begin with the words, “Studies say .” People passionately arguing for a favored position will resort to these citations of assumed authority, and will often fail to comprehend the scope or underlying data ... Even on line, where writers usually link to the source data, the studies either prove to be limited in application, poorly researched, or entirely wrong. Sometimes that has serious consequences. A study published in the British medical journal Lancet more than a decade ago started a panic about a supposed causal connection between vaccinations and autism. It fueled an anti-vaccination movement that has resulted in the return of diseases once thought stamped out in the West ... The study was later exposed as a fraud, based on only twelve subjects handpicked by its author ... with the data even further manipulated. The Lancet later withdrew the study and admitted it was “an elaborate fraud.” By then, it was far too late to undo the damage done to uncounted children over several years. Most questionable studies, and questionable claims made from them involve less malice and intent to defraud but matter nonetheless for public policy. ... Claims of support from “studies” for extraordinary and yet oh-so-convenient claims need much more careful scrutiny – and perhaps much more pointed skepticism."
