Data

Data is an interesting thing.  Beyond the weird cyborg ish guy on Star Trek, data seems to often be misunderstood.   Many people ask for data, but then ignore it.  Many people suggest that their lack of awareness of data signifies that the data does not exist.

What do we know about data.

1.  Data is not proof.
2.  There is data that supports ones contention, and data that doesn't.  Yet both are data.
3.  Being unaware of data does not mean that the data does not exist.


This confusion over data plays out in several ways.

1.  When people cling to beliefs despite the presence of data that suggests that they are wrong.

•       A.   There are a number of Trump supporters who continue to support him despite increasing amounts data that suggest that he will lose badly in the general election.
•       B.     People make or repeat an assertion (99.9% of Muslims support terror/It's only a tiny minority of Muslims who support terror), yet when data is supplied that calls that claim into question, it's ignored and the subject is changed.
•       C.     When a claim is made about how vital the peer review process is to science, and much contrary data is supplied and the original claimant simply ignores the conversation as if pretending that the data isn't there somehow makes it go away.

2.   When people claim they want data, but dismiss it out of hand before examining it.

•    A.  The "I studied this topic once a long time ago and I believe that I have a thorough enough understanding of all of the possible  arguments and data to avoid looking at anything beyond what I remember from years ago." rationale.
•     B.   The "I'm not familiar with any contrary data therefore it must not exist." rationale.

3.   When people ask that you provide readily available data to them, but refuse to do so in return.
4.   When people act as if simply asserting their personal experience is sufficient data to extrapolate larger conclusions.

Personally, when I ask someone to provide some data to support their claim, I almost always read what they provide.   Interestingly enough, I have noticed that on more than one occasion that upon closer examination the data provided does not actually support the claim made, and on occasion actually refutes the claim being made.

The last interesting things about data is when people pick and choose which times they will accept the authority of people who are more qualified than they to draw specific conclusions.   For example, when someone argues that people undergoing gender reassignment is a "healthy" and "good" thing despite that mounting evidence from medical professionals to the contrary, I find that strange that someone would put their own politically motivated opinion over that of those who in the medical field.   Or those that suggest that anal sex is not physically harmful, despite significant medical data to the contrary.

I'll be the first to admit that it's sometimes hard to follow data when it leads you away from your starting position or suggests that your deeply held politically correct position du jour is not quite as true as you'd like it to be.  But at some point doesn't one have to stop dismissing the data that exists, to actually look at a broad range of the data out there (even data from people who you disagree with), examine it with an open mind and follow it where it leads?

Hey, if you want to be like the Trump folks and live in this fantasy land in; which a candidate with 69% negatives,who has already alienated at least 30% of the party which is is running as a part of, and who is consistently polling 12% behind any of the democrat candidates, is somehow going to miraculously get elected president go right ahead.  Just don't claim that you're hope is based on good data.


EDIT

I was listening to a radio interview this morning with an economist who had done a study on the effects of our high state taxes on our economy.  In short that IRS data shows pretty convincingly that people earning between $100,000-$200,000 are leaving the state in significant numbers which is adversely affecting   the amount of income taxes collected.  Further IRS data shows that there is a significant exodus of people from high tax states into low/no tax states.    One listener responded to this data by saying that she would never pay attention to anything that came from the Koch brothers.   this is the same kind of thing I've seen where someone dismissed something from Francis Scheaffer simply because they perceived that he (Scheaffer) was "too Calvinist".   This concept of dismissing data because of the "source" is simply beyond ridiculous.  It's an indication that the person employing the excuse is either too closed minded, lazy, or afraid to actually consider the possibility that there might be data that proves them wrong.  

EDIT II

Why is it that people demand "data" to support any argument against their position, yet when "data" is provided simply ignore it?