Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The origin of the phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is unclear, but Mark Twain attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli [1] "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, "one of the best, and best-known" critiques of applied statistics. [2]
Statistics, when used in a misleading fashion, can trick the casual observer into believing something other than what the data shows. That is, a misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator.
For example, by truncating the bottom of a line or bar chart so that differences seem larger than they are. Or, by representing one-dimensional quantities on a pictogram by two- or three-dimensional objects to compare their sizes so that the reader forgets that the images do not scale the same way the quantities do.
George Box. The phrase "all models are wrong" was first attributed to George Box in a 1976 paper published in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.In the paper, Box uses the phrase to refer to the limitations of models, arguing that while no model is ever completely accurate, simpler models can still provide valuable insights if applied judiciously. [1]
In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding a statistical survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population. [1] [6] [7] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, which consists of denying a reasonable conclusion of an inductive argument (e.g. "it was just a coincidence").
In statistics, a misleading graph, also known as a distorted graph, is a graph that misrepresents data, constituting a misuse of statistics and with the result that an incorrect conclusion may be derived from it. Graphs may be misleading by being excessively complex or poorly constructed.
For example, flipping a coin five times with a result of 2 heads and 3 tails might lead one to hypothesize that the coin favors tails by 3/5 to 2/5. If this hypothesis is then tested on the existing data set, it is confirmed, but the confirmation is meaningless.
This fallacy is the philosophical or rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which is the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.