A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.
A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.
In 1954, Darrel Huff published his book “How to Lie with Statistics”. I don't need to read it — the title says enough. I am continually bothered by figures, how they are prepared, interpreted, manipulated etc. to support a particular narrative. The presentation of information is but one aspect. Othersinclude how data is collected, what is included or excluded and how it is interpreted, all too often with the intent of influencing the outcome.
A recent analysis determined that the funder of research can influence the outcome by as much as 30 percent. (You don't displease such funders if you want ongoing business.) This becomes particularly relevant where financial consequences are involved. These can include profits, salaries, bonuses, commissions, legal protections, political intent, “kick-backs” etc.
Recently, a high-profile US doctor made an observation about artificial sweeteners which have been shown to increase weight-gain and type 2 diabetes: “Industry studies show that such sweeteners are almost 100 percent harmless. Independent studies show they are almost 100 percent harmful.”
We are faced with the dilemma of what or who to believe, which science — which information? Our investigation should include, not just the presented “facts”, but who is behind them and what they stand to gain or lose. It might be a matter of job security, reputation, contracts etc. At another level it could involve billions of dollars.
Those promoting the perceived conventional argument have little to fear. Individuals proposing counter arguments might be putting their reputation and future on the line. Why would a rational person follow such a path?
When it comes to big business and politics, people are discarded as “collateral damage”. It also seems, far too often, that big business and politics are very closely connected. Officials and vested interests seem to go to extraordinary lengths to suppress or eliminate “inconvenient” information.
The one reasonable conclusion we can make is that we should take all information, including scientific results, with a grain of salt. Does the information stand up to wider scrutiny? Furthermore, changing our personal viewpoint can be a challenge.
