Conservative bias about 'leftist bias'

The ABC recently published an article Teachers, schools in firing line as conservatives rail against 'leftist agenda',  based on their Australia Talks National Survey. The crux of the piece is that: 'One Nation voters are turning on the mainstream education system as conservatives across the country express a deep mistrust of what they say is a "leftist agenda" taking over the classroom.'

There's nothing wrong with the story per se, but the headline and associated graphs they use send a misleading message. They show the satisfaction of voters of different parties with the education system and with teachers.

However, they are out of 100% for each party, thus greatly 'biasing' the results for parties that have a small number of voters. Consider the sizes of the orange columns, which belong to One Nation, who nationally polled 1.29% at the last federal election.

When you adjust the graphs based on the national first preferences, making them out of 100% in total, this is the result.

There are certainly lessons to be learned in terms of why different groups responded to the survey in this way, but it should be kept in perspective. This isn’t about ‘conservatives’, given the blue LNP would fall under that category. It’s about a small far right party that already gets quite a bit of media attention, especially when compared to the proportion of the population who throw votes their way. Further, as the article goes on to say:"[t]he root of the frustration can be traced to a wider dissatisfaction with the political landscape...", rather than the education system and teachers themselves. 

False Attribution

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Unreliable source; fabricated source (c.f. appeal to authority).

Description

This deceptive tactic involves an advocate appealing to a marginally relevant, irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or even non-existent source to support a claim. The advocate may in some cases have a "half-hearted" degree of faith in the alleged source (they may have a dim recollection of having read something somewhere about the topic), or the advocate may deliberately fake knowledge of a source which they know does not exist.

Example

Simon Murmurgut and Jenny Peristalsis are selling home-made herbal extracts at the local market. They have a sign at their stall advertising a "special slimming mixture". The main ingredient is paspalum juice. They are challenged by Kevin Jaded, a skeptical bystander. He says: "How do you know it works?"

Simon immediately responds: "There has been a recent study published in the Medical Journal of Patagonia which shows that eating four grams or more of paspalum each day results in the loss of up to 500 grams of body fat per fortnight."

Comment

If Simon did in fact read such an article, and if he is truthfully reporting the findings, he is not guilty of false attribution. However, if he only thinks that Jenny may have mentioned about a month or two ago that she had read somewhere in a South American journal that eating some paspalum each day results in the loss of some body fat, then he is guilty of false attribution. In this case, he is deliberately misleading Kevin about his own degree of certainty about the supposed "facts". If however, Simon is just inventing the reference, then he is guilty of the most reprehensible form of false attribution – deliberate deception through the citation of a fake source.

The deliberate or inadvertent fabrication of source information is a common feature of vigorous discussion. It is a tactic often used in desperation by advocates when they feel that the argument is about to be lost. The seeker after truth will often be assured by advocates that they have read some compelling facts about the topic under discussion – facts which unequivocally support the advocate’s position. The initial response of a seeker after truth to apparent dissembling of this kind should be a courteous request for a specific citation. This request should not be in the form of a provocative challenge, if the skeptic wishes to maintain a positive emotional climate as the discussion proceeds. In making the request, the point should be made that "going directly to the source" is always more reliable than a second-hand report.

Skeptical seekers after truth will not reject claims a priori. Nor will they accept claims a priori. They will reserve judgment on an issue and ask advocates for details of the source – with a view for reading it for themselves. Note that this request for a citation so that the skeptic can read the alleged information for themselves will not usually resolve the question on the spot, so the question may remain open. However, the more dedicated debunker may decide to pursue the issue beyond the particular discussion as a matter of principle. If the skeptical opponent subsequently finds out that false attribution has taken place, they could take the trouble to contact the evasive advocate (perhaps even several months after the initial discussion) and point out that the source cited doesn't exist, or the advocate's interpretation was in error.

In the day and age of internet enabled mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablets, made up on the spot false attributions will likely be easier to detect and a less effective form of humbug. As such, false attributions will likely become more elaborate. As the Wikipedia entry on false attribution now notes, devious and immoral frauds may even go as far as to create fake sources in order to cite them to support a claim.

(Note: if you are thorough you will no doubt attempt to verify the above reference to the Wikipedia entry on false attribution. It will almost certainly bear no resemblance to the citation above because of subsequent capricious editing. Check the revision history for 07:14, 28 April 2010 UTC to verify that this reference was valid at almost the exact time this updated section to the book was written - 07:37, 28 April 2010 UTC.)

 

Slippery Slope

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Thin end of the wedge; Trojan horse.

Description

The slippery slope fallacy assumes without evidence that if we take a particular step which in itself doesn’t cause a problem, it is nevertheless the first in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some undesired outcome. This fallacy in reasoning is often called the “thin end of the wedge” argument. An example might be the view that if marijuana is decriminalized, then this will inevitably lead to decriminalization of harder drugs. Or: “If we allow simulated depictions of sex on TV after 9.30pm, it won’t be long before such things are depicted early in the evening when young children are watching.”

While this view is technically flawed (not based on direct evidence), dismissing such concerns as necessarily without foundation would be problematic, as experience suggests that communities, nation-states or civilizations may sometimes be incapable of recognizing and responding in a timely way to incremental, adverse change.

Example

Gene Toadstrangler is a spokesperson on public affairs for the Church of Chastisement. He has been asked by the editor of The Daily Drumbeat, a small regional newspaper, to write an article on a Bill before state Parliament on the Rights of the Child (Safety and Security). Among his remarks is the following statement:

At the moment, the proposed legislation states that parents are not allowed to assault their children with a heavy object… this is something we would all agree with. But the problem with such legislation is that it won’t stop there… once this is passed, it will give impetus to ‘do-gooders’ who will be encouraged to remove all rights to parents to discipline their children.

Comment

Gene is in the paradoxical position here of seeking to argue against a proposition that he actually believes in. He believes that parents should not be allowed to belabour children with a solid object, but he doesn’t want the legislation because legislation which might follow might go too far.

Gene would be well advised to clearly define for himself just what level of punishment should be available to parents in chastising children. He should then develop as clear a case as possible for reserving the right to punish at that level. Following this, he could then point out that although the current legislation is acceptable to him, there is a widely recognised tendency for “crossing lines drawn in the sand”. He could argue that the community as a whole should be alert to possible further shifts in the levels of correction available to parents. When such a shift occurs, he can then vigorously oppose that further shift from a credible standpoint.

The slippery slope is a widely recognised and documented fallacy in informal logic. However, it is often the case that accusations by an opponent that the advocate is employing the slippery slope fallacy are unwarranted.

Sometimes individuals who simply wish to halt an incremental change at a particular point will present a rational case for their position. For example, an advocate may argue against cloning as a solution for human infertility on the grounds that cloning is itself undesirable for various reasons. Further, that once the technology for safe and effective human cloning is developed, elective cloning is likely to follow. An accusation that the advocate has made unjustified use of the slippery slope argument in the latter proposition may not be warranted. If (for example) the advocate can illustrate and support his or her case with parallel examples where technological developments have outpaced ethical controls, then he or she is likely to be a seeker after truth rather than an emotionally driven alarmist.

On the other hand, when people who lack the mature judgement of the authors venture onto a slippery slope, they will inevitably wallow in ever-more bizarre misconceptions and fallacious reasoning until we end up with nothing but gibberish – and finally, the complete destruction of civilization as we know it.

Misuse of Information

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Misuse or misunderstanding of statistics; misuse or misunderstanding of facts and/or theories.

Description

The advocate misinterprets information (and the misinterpretation supports his or her position); or the advocate deliberately misuses information (a statistic, fact or theory) in order to support his or her position.

Example

1. Misuse of statistics

Scott Armani raises a delicate issue with his boss Phil Greenspan: "What am I going to do about the average wage of the employees in our third world factory for this report? We need to make it look like we pay decent wages."

Phil responds:e "Easy to fix. Just include the factory manager's pay rate and the average should come out nicely."

Following Phil's advice, Scott works out the average wage as follows. He uses data based on ten employees from the factory, including the manager. Their rates per hour are: $1.00, $1.00, $1.00, $1.00, $2.00, $2.00, $2.00, $3.00 , $3.00, $50.00. Thus the average wage for the factory as stated in the Annual Report will be $6.60 per hour.

2. Misuse of facts/theories

Karl Vladimir Eyemnotrite is the editor of the monthly Stalinist newsletter, We've Still (sort of) Got China, Cuba and North Korea. Writing in his usual opinionated style, he editorialises against the recent attempt to introduce laws to ban gay marriage.

"The problem with laws like this, is that they are judgmental. They tell us how to live. But we are in no position to judge anyone else. In order to judge, we must first be able to observe. Einstein showed us, with his theory of relativity, there are no privileged observers. Everything is relative. Quantum physics adds to this. The act of observing (or rather judging) changes the properties of things. So given these two fundamentals of physics – everything is relative, nothing absolute, and observations change what we are observing – how can we judge something like gay marriage if it does not harm us directly? The answer? We can't."

Comment

In the first example, Scott has not technically lied in his report, but he has used a statistical technique to create the impression the company prefers. The average chosen for the report is the mean. It is one of the three most common measures of central tendency – the others are the median and the mode. The mode of Scott's data range (that is, what most of their employees are paid per hour) is $1.00. The median pay, (the middle number when the data is arranged in ascending order) is $2.00 per hour. Through the selective use of statistics Scott (on the advice of Phil) has painted the picture he wants for the report.

In the second example, Karl Vladimir has cited two concepts of modern physics to back up his claim. These are theories of the physical world and say nothing about ethics or law. Thus they are being misused. In this book we do not take issue with gay marriage (what two or more consenting adults get up to and label it is entirely up to them), but we do take issue with fallacious reasoning, such as Karl's argument raised in his editorial, which misuses a theory and is therefore flawed.

The best defence for seekers after truth – against being deceived by the misuse of information – is to do their "homework" on the topic under consideration. This is only really possible if the general topic of discussion is known beforehand (in the case of verbal discussion), or if time is available for follow-up reading (when the misleading material is in a publication). If the misleading material is offered during a spontaneous discussion, in the age of internet enabled smartphones, a quick query on a search engine could be enough to call a sciolist's bluff.

That being said, the best recourse for the skeptic is to question advocates closely on the details of their claim, and to be alert for circular arguments, weak premises, unwarranted inferences and weak or unconvincing anecdotes. Close questioning often reveals that ill-informed advocates know far less about the topic than they claim to know. We have certainly found that at least 100% of those few people who routinely disagree with us know five eighths of three fifths of nothing at all about anything.

Other examples

"Quantum Scalar Energy Pendant is made from natural minerals that are fused and structurally bonded together at a molecular level. It produces scalar energy that helps to enhance the body’s biofield. Quantum Scalar Energy Pendant promotes positive flow of energy and helps to maintain energy balance. Mineral based high-tech formulated energy pendant, made from volcanic lava, using Japanese technology. Capable of emitting scalar energy instantly transforming bio-energy into our body to promote molecular activities of water molecules in body organs." Quantum Scalar Energy Pendant (http://www.sependant.com).

 

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 10: False Cause; Correlation Error (feat. Jenny McCarthy)

In this podcast we discuss the False Cause; Correlation Error. It’s the 1st pod in a series we are doing on the air head actress Jenny McCarthy and her fallacious views on autism.



Here's the link to direct download: (35 mins & 16 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.

The "cut down" video podcast version:

• Here's the youtube link from where I obtained the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36PLQIMW69c
• Stop Jenny McCarthy
  
• Our number of subscribers are rising steadily. However, be sure to give us a hand by spamming everyone you know, or at the very least, digging/stumbling us (using some kind of social networking) and writing a review for itunes: http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_to_vote_favorite_podcast_apple_itunes.html
  

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 04: Misuse of Information

This podcast deals with the misuse and abuse of statistics and scientific theories and terminology. From surveys and natural health claims to new age gibberish.



Here's the link to direct download: (46 mins & 17 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.


Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:

Show notes and further commentary

Flyer from my letterbox for the"Health and Beauty Store". Click to see full size.

Never having come across a footbath detox before, I googled it and found www.detoxfootbath.com.au. I sent them the following email:

Hi…,

I'd like to know what colour the water in the bath turns when you run it without feet in it? I.e. with only the water in it? I just recall from my Year 10 chemistry class doing electrolysis and seeing the water change colour. For example, using salt water with copper electrodes does the following:

On passing the current through the salt water solution the ions head towards the electrode with the opposite charge (i.e. anions go to the anode and cations to the cathode). In the case of salt water (sodium chloride solution), the Na+ (sodium ion) goes to the cathode (negative electrode) and the Cl- (chloride) to the anode (positive electrode). This is the current moving through the solution.

My chemistry is pretty basic, however, I recall that at one of the copper electrodes the copper atoms are giving up electrons and becoming copper ions (Cu2+) which go into the solution, making it into a blue/green (copper) colour. The longer you run the electrolysis the more colour you get in the water. This happens with all sorts of electrolysis and various types of metal electrodes.

So again, my question is, how can you tell it’s “toxins from the body” going into the water if the water changes colour whether feet are in the bath or not?

After a few days, I received this reply:

--- On Fri, 17/10/08, …………………………………………………….. wrote:
From: ……………………………………….
Subject: RE: Footprint to Health Contact
To: ..................................
Received: Friday, 17 October, 2008, 2:43 PM

Dear Theo

My apologies for my slow reply, I have been away from my computer most of this past week. Thank you for your email, we appreciate a thorough enquiry and I will do my best to answer it!!

It is not actually possible to run our machine without feet in it so we have not been able to conduct this experiment ourselves. Our machine needs our clients to have their feet in the water, the array also needs to be in the water and the client must have the wrist strap on for it to commence a detox.

However you are correct with your understandings of basic chemistry. As the array and salt combine in the water, a light brown colour emerges. It is my understanding that this relates to the slow breakdown of the array plates.

The footbath itself has a powerful effect on the body, I know this, because I have experienced it many times myself, and seen the results with our many clients. I believe the process of electrolysis actually stimulates the blood in our bodies via the reflexology points on our feet which does the following: it restores energy and balance in our bodies and eases tension in certain areas.

So we prefer not to focus on the colours created by the array in the bath water.

We focus on sharing these wonderful results with as many people as we can, as many of our clients have reported the following: Increased energy, Improved sleep, Better circulation in the legs – it removes the build up of lactic acid I have found. Removal of headaches and improvement for migraine sufferers Great results with skin conditions such as excema and psoriasis Reduction in joint pain - esp in ankles and wrists Decrease in pain

Theo I trust I have addressed your question. Please let me know if you would like to know more.

Oh, I wanted to know more, to be sure! Now, here comes the hard sell…

Have you experienced a footbath detox yourself? If not, I highly recommend it. I know just the place you can order a great machine for home use!! Thank you again for your email.

Make today great

This part of the reply made today especially great: “…the process of electrolysis actually stimulates the blood in our bodies via the reflexology points on our feet…” I laughed and laughed and laughed…

Of course, I had to reply:

Hi ….,

Thanks for replying. I have a couple of follow up questions.

How come the machine cannot run without feet in it? Is this an instruction from the manufacturer or is there some inbuilt mechanism that will not let the machine work. This really seems strange to me? I can't think of a comparable machine that cannot be run without a person in it. E.g. CAT scans, x-rays, MRIs can all run with or without the patient and I'd suggest these are far more complex and powerful machines? Couldn't you put a "dummy" object in to test it (literally a dummy if you could find one).

As to your anecdotes of the efficacy of the machine, I'm curious to know if you've heard of the placebo effect and have attempted to test the device ruling this out? A procedure to do this could easily be set up and I'd be happy to give you advice on how this could be achieved.

Given the mechanism by which this machine is claimed to work is fairly implausible, it would be a good idea to see if it actually does work as claimed (i.e., above and beyond placebo). If there is a measurable effect, further research into the mechanism by which it works would be warranted, and once this is established, it would not be too long until the Nobel prize committee would be on the phone, for either medicine, physics, chemistry or possibly all of the above!

Regards,

Theo

Still waiting for a reply... so much for wanting to answer further questions.

Back to the pamphlet and the most bogus claim of them all (an impressive feat!) - Scalar Energy Therapy

I don't even know where to begin with this BS. Ill just point out there's no evidence for scalar energy. And even if there turns out to was such a thing as scalar energy (given advocates claim it will provide "free energy"... draw your own conclusions) - that's one hell of a leap to take from theory to clinical use. I'm not too sure what the business of the "width" of the waves, measured in square centimeters has to do with anything (the hundred millionth of a square cm)? Perhaps the person who wrote this flyer is simply a clueless charlatan?

Let's see if there's any more evidence that corroborates this view. What other treatment is offered? Why none other than "Micro Wave Pulse Ion Herbal treatment" [sic]! Such blatant misuse of my beloved physics terminology just makes me want to punch them in the face, but I'm a pacifist, obviously.
_________________
In the podcast we also discuss What the Bleep do we Know? and the abuse of quantum physics. They know how to construct blatant Non-Sequiturs, that's about it though. Others have done the debunking - such as Bernie Hobbs. Here's the youtube clip I captured the audio from.

We also mention the Sokal Hoax. Here's Sokal's paper and here's Richard Dawkins' take on it (a short summary). The book by Sokal and Bricmont - Intellectual Impostures.
_________________
One final thought.

Often true believers accuse skeptics of being “close-minded” to the possibility of their particular pseudoscience being legitimate. However, I’ll Spin Another Hypothesis – feel free to use it in discussion with the credulous. Perhaps they are the close-minded ones – close-minded to the possibility that they’re full of crap.

Manufacturing an educational crisis

Here’s an example of Stacking the Deck and Misusing Information from Australian Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard (or rather, one of her lackeys) and co., done in order to manufacture a crisis in Australian education to justify the instigation of a pseudo-revolution. (Worse than this, the journalists who reported this story couldn’t be bothered to check the facts for themselves… or didn’t know how to read a graph.)

In this news story and the various versions of it, Gillard, with the help of compliant journalists, make Australia’s “performance” relative to other OECD countries in education look inadequate:

An OECD report ranks Australia 19th out of 28 developed nations on overall education spending and second last to Belgium on public education institutions investment.

The Rudd government and the Australian Education Union (AEU) say the report proves the former coalition government neglected education during its nearly 12 years in office.

"This is a report card that paints a bitter legacy for the nation from the Howard years in education - insufficient investment and falling behind the standards of the rest of the world," Education Minister Julia Gillard told reporters in Melbourne.

… The report shows only Belgium spent less on public education institutions than Australia among the OECD countries.

In 2005, just 0.1 per cent of GDP was spent on pre-primary institutions, compared to the OECD average of 0.4 per cent, ranking Australia equal 24th out of 26 countries in that category.

Tertiary education expenditure was only 1.1 per cent of GDP, also less than the OECD average.

The indicators (and associated statistics) they refer to are all true. However, they’ve only referred to two of the indicators the OECD Education at a Glance 2008 report looked at. As such, by cherry picking these two points, Gillard et al. are guilty of Stacking the Deck and Misusing Statistics.

This is a 500 page document with over 100 indicators… Moreover, on most of the economic indicators that I looked at, Australia comes up pretty well in terms of spending and has increased spending from 1995 (when Labor was in power – losing the 1996 election to the Liberals) to 2005 (the Liberals still in power). Of course, over this period most of the state governments were Labor and the economy as a whole was growing, so to tease out where an increase in funding came from and why is a little beyond what I want to do here. The point I’m making is that to pick out two bits of data and say it’s a legacy of the Howard government is a complete Non Sequitur.

In the finest traditions of political expedience and inept journalism, I’ll cherry-pick some data now. For example, page 231 of the report points out that:

For all levels of education combined, public and private investment in education increased in all countries by at least 8% between 1995 and 2005 in real terms and increased on average by 42% in OECD countries. Australia, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United States increased expenditure on educational institutions by 30 to 50%...

Page 237 of the report, Table B2.1. - Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP , by level of education (1995, 2000, 2005) tells is the following for the total levels of all education in Australia. In 1995 (Keating’s Labor government) it was 5.3 %, in 2000 (Howard’s Liberal government) it was 5.6 % and 2005 (Howard government) 5.8 %... So, there you go. Howard’s legacy is an increase in overall spending.

The rhetoric from both sides of politics regarding education in Australia is worrying given they seem hell bent on looking to the US for ideas. I won’t go into details about the proposed education revolution as it’s too big a topic. I will point out, however, that Australia consistently out performs the US and UK (another model often cited) on the PISA performance in science. This raises the question as to why Gillard is looking at the school models used in the US and UK? Given the data, the answer is beyond me. Perhaps US and UK students can do maths and write better than Australian students? Nope

I’ll combine these two points now – Australia’s spending on education and Australia’s educational outcomes:

Indicator B7 (page 304): How efficiently are resources used in education? This indicator examines the relationship between resources invested and outcomes achieved in upper secondary education in OECD countries and thus raises questions about the efficiency of education systems.

High spending per student cannot automatically be equated with strong performance by education systems. Spending per student up to the age of 15 in the Czech Republic is roughly one-third of, and in Korea roughly one-half of, spending levels in the United States. However, while both the Czech Republic and Korea are among the top ten performers in the PISA 2006 assessment of science achievement among 15-year-olds, the United States performs below the OECD average. Similarly, Spain and the United States perform almost equally well, but while the United States spends roughly USD 95 600 per student up to the age of 15 years, Spain only spends USD 61 860.

And then on page 306:

Student performance and spending per student. Table B7.1 compares countries’ actual cumulative spending per student between the ages of 6 and 15 in 2005 on average, with their average student performance on the science literacy scale of PISA 2006 and with other economic and social indicators…

Chart B7.2 shows a positive relationship between cumulative spending per student and mean science performance. As cumulative expenditure per student on educational institutions increases, so does a country’s mean PISA performance in science. However, the relationship is not a strong one; cumulative expenditure per student in fact explains merely 15% of the variation in mean performance between countries…. In other words, spending levels per student cannot automatically be equated with the performance of the education system as measured by PISA.

Australia came 6th overall in the PISA performance in science in 2006, behind Finland, Canada, Japan, Estonia and New Zealand. The UK was 11th and the US was 23rd. On page 309 we get one of the most poignant statements:

The fact that similar levels of expenditure between countries can mask a variety of contrasting policy choices made by countries goes some way to explaining why simplistic comparisons of student performance and expenditure levels fail to show strong correlations. It remains for further analysis to examine what influence these different policy choices actually have on quality and equity of learning outcomes.

I point all this out to show that a simpleminded discourse played out in the media does no-one any favours. From reading the popular media over the last few years one gets the impression Australia’s educational system in on the brink of collapse and Australian students are performing badly relative to other countries. It may be politically expedient to further this myth, it may grab headlines, but if it forms the basis of poor policy decisions – like looking to the US where USD 30,000 more is spent per student (from the age of 6 to 15) than Australia and yet they perform extremely poorly and Australia performs very well in the PISA science testing (page 307) - it becomes potentially disastrous. On the other hand, it might simply be a way of justifying an increase in spending on education - in particular in areas of genuine disadvantage. However, as a rule of thumb I'm against humbug, even if in the name of a good cause.

This is not to say all the points Gillard talks about are wrong or bad ideas; it’s just that if you’re right, you have no need to resort to humbug. For example, Gillard wants more accountability and for schools to make achievement data public:

...a significant positive association between schools making their achievement data public and having stronger results. (Page 9 of the Executive Summary.)

Of course, this implies there is little accountability in Australian schools which is simply untrue, but that's a whole other post...

Here's the direct link to the PDF of the OECD report: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/46/41284038.pdf

Shonky Nutella

The manufacturers (and advertisers) of admittedly delicious spread Nutella were awarded the Choice Shonky for Low General Integrity:

The CHOICE Shonky for Low General Integrity Goes to the ... Ferrero Nutella Hazelnut Spread.

Child obesity is a serious problem in Australia, so marketing a high-fat, high-sugar food as a healthy choice is just shonky.'Less fat than most peanut butters, less sugar than most jams', said one Nutella ad. This may be the case, but out of all these spreads it has the highest combination of both: it’s almost 85% fat and sugar, packing a whopping 2175kJ of energy into every 100g.

But it also contains nutritious hazelnuts and has a low GI, claims another ad. Does that make it OK? No. Hazelnuts are well down the ingredient list (13%) and a low GI doesn’t necessarily mean a food is healthy. Chocolate cake with chocolate frosting has a similar GI as Nutella, and you wouldn’t feed that to your kids for their breakfast every day, would you?

The manufacturers Stack the Deck by ignoring other pertinent nutritional information. They don't point out the 2175 kj per 100 g. They don't point out it's almost 85 % fat. They say hazelnuts are low GI, but fail to mention hazelnuts only constitute 13 % of the spread. In this sense they are also guilty of a Misuse of Information.

Mean, Median and Sex

I found the workings of an old post I never got around to posting. So here it is.

Time for a maths lesson for Gina Kolata of the New York Times, who reported on a survey that found:

…men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

Apparently "mathematicians" don't understand the difference between various measures of central tendency:

But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for heterosexual men to have more partners on average than heterosexual women. Those survey results cannot be correct.

Um, yeah, they can. This falls under the category of Misuse of Information. The explanation is pretty much the same as the example in our book, but dirtier.

The mean number of partners for men and woman has to be the same. But the median, as was quoted above, does not. The majority of women tend to have less sexual partners than the majority of men. The median for women is lower. However, there could be enough dirty women who have many, many partners - enough to keep the means even, but skew the distribution.

To be fair to Kolata, she and her mathematician corrected this the next week:

He had looked at the actual data from the survey citing medians and found that it could not possibly be correct. Of course he knew the difference between a median and a mean.

It's still a good example nonetheless. (And a good example of why you should always say what you mean, with all the caveats, as clearly as possible.)

Kim Jong-Il popularity plummets to 120%

Yes, it's true, the second-most popular leader in the history of the world is losing popularity. See the Onion for further details.

Alzheimer's Survey Shock Finding

From "America's Favourite News Source - The Onion. For those critical of survey data... worth a look.

Half empty cup actually half full - shock story

The story:

AUSTRALIAN parents are largely unhappy with the quality of school education, says a new Federal Government report.

The survey of 2000 parents, conducted earlier this year, found many believed their children were receiving a substandard education. Only 58 per cent of parents said primary schooling was up to scratch, and less than 40 per cent said secondary schooling was acceptable.

Those with a child in a non-government school were happier with both education and teacher quality than those with a child in a state school.

Same data, different spin (I shifted a few descriptors around):

AUSTRALIAN parents are largely happy with the quality of school education, says a new Federal Government report.

The survey of 2000 parents, conducted earlier this year, found that most believed their children were receiving a standard education, or a better than standard education. Fully 58 per cent of parents said primary schooling was up to scratch, and many said secondary schooling was acceptable.

Those with a child in a non-government school were even happier with both education and teacher quality than those with a child in a state school.

Jono's views on Climate Change

Climate change seems to be all the rage these days, and this blog is no exception. I thought I'd share the views of "Jono" as stated in a comment thread on Andrew Bartlett's blog:

The best way to become carbon neutral is to stop breathing.

As much as the Greens and environmentalists would love us to all just shut up and die, they aren’t even going to hint at it when they discuss their hairbrained policies and regulations.

Instead they will talk about abstract nonsense like “the environment” and “climate change”.

So what? The climate changes, it always has for centuries, why does it become a political issue to justify yet another massive tax and invasion of property rights ?

The Greens are the biggest threat to liberty since communism.

With a very quick review of these insightful few words I found examples of:

False Positioning and an Unfounded Generalisation: … as the Greens and environmentalists would love us to all just shut up and die…

Weasel Words: …they will talk about abstract nonsense like “the environment” and “climate change”.

Misuse of Information followed by Motive Impugning: The climate changes, it always has for centuries, why does it become a political issue to justify yet another massive tax and invasion of property rights ?

And lastly, an Argument to Consequences combined with Poisoning the Well: The Greens are the biggest threat to liberty since communism.

Please note, lest people misread the above, I am not making a case for or against the reality of climate change. I'm just pointing out some dodgy arguments. I've made my position apropos to climate change clear before and can't be bothered to rehash the same old points in the comments section.

Women and maths don’t add up

No, I’m not talking about the fact that they can’t do maths. (Just joking, most of the maths teachers I work with are women and they are excellent mathematicians. Not only that, the male maths teachers are big girls.) I’m talking about the following statement made in an article in today’s Australian - Workplaces wasting our women: Bishop:

High attrition rates by women in law and medicine contrast with their domination of undergraduate courses.

Without any numbers to back that up, I’d believe it. However, statistics would make the point more convincing. The next paragraph has them for us:

Sixty per cent of law students studying at Monash University in 2004 were female, as were more than 70 per cent of medical students. But a Royal Australasian College of Surgeons study found in 1998 that 16 per cent of basic surgical trainees and 13 per cent of advanced surgical trainees were women.

Umm, surely to argue the first point, the stats you’d need are the percentages in an undergraduate course in year X, followed by a follow-up survey of the same women in the occupation for which the course trains them a few year later, year X + 5 (say); not the other way around? These stats tell us nothing of the fates of the undergraduate students from 2004 – surely we need this information to form a conclusion apropos to attrition rates? For all we know, from these stats, it could now (in 2006) be that all these women are working somewhere as basic surgical trainees and advanced surgical trainees - no attrition.

Extremely unlikely I know. As I said, I’d wager that it is still a very low percentage, but please, don’t Misuse Statistics, even if your point is right. If it is right after all, you should have some relevant stats, somewhere, to back you up.

________
Technorati Tagged - Fallacy, Skepticism, Misuse of Information, Statistics.

Michael Moore denies he has pseudologia fantastica…

… but his lengthening nose and grumpy expression, a trademark of all liars, gives it away.

Pseudologia fantastica:

"Despite achieving some success, they don't really believe in their hearts that they're worth very much. They always have to exaggerate in an attempt to be the center of attention, to have people admire them, to feel good about themselves."

(I wasn't sure if it was really necessary to do a distoratature of Moore, but I did one anyway.)

What really upsets me about Moore, more than the asinine Moore-ons who credulously swallow his every contention, is the fact that I was once one of them. Before Bush was first elected I used to watch his show The Awful Truth week in, week out, enjoying it thoroughly, root'n for "the little guy" who Moore so admirably and humorously stood up for. Then I saw Bowling for Columbine which I thought was great, it confirmed everything I already "knew" about those gun crazed seppoes. In one scene Moore shows Charlton Heston to be completely heartless. Heston holds an NRA gun rally just ten days after the Columbine school massacre, one town away. "At this rally", Moore shows Heston making a speech, in which he lifts a gun over his head and says: "… from my cold dead hands."

As I've said before, Moore doesn't like letting little things such as the actual Truth, ruin his Awful "Truth". This is why Moore upsets me so. I see guns in homes as completely unnecessary (except if it is required for one's livelihood). So Bowling for Columbine is preaching to the converted in my case. However, Moore treats us with contempt. The main fallacy I will cite him for here, is Misuse of Information*. In his "documentaries" he manipulates footage and facts, mostly through omission and historical revisionism. His predominant method is rearranging a sequence of events (and footage) or joining disconnected events (and footage) to suit his own ideology. Moore does this in everything he does. Without going into detail, here is actually what happened after Columbine.

The NRA is a non-profit organisation, and as such, by law, each branch is required to have an AGM. At the Denver meeting Moore attacks a callous, the NRA cancelled all events (which normally go over several days) except the AGM for voting members (which, again, by law they had to have). Thus we have Moore's omission. Moore's other tactic is to use a sequence of (disconnected and rearranged) events. Heston's "cold, dead hands speech" which, as depicted by Moore, seems to lead off the Denver meeting happened in Charlotte, North Carolina a year later. It was a gesture of gratitude to a gift (the gun). Now don't get me wrong, the whole lifting of the gun above the head and the "cold, dead hands bit" makes Heston a bit of a clown, but what Moore does to him is unjustifiable. His outright lie and hatchet job on Heston is unforgivable. (Here's Moore's defence, and as you'll see, he tries to justify his approach, saying it all happened. Yes I did Mike, just not in the order you imply it did, and where you imply it did. Thus he refuses to acknowledge his deliberate misuse of footage to paint a false picture of Heston.)

Is this technique a "one off"? No. In F 911 Moore is at it again. Bush's speech at one point in the movie: "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." Of course, in its actual context, it turns out that Bush was being self deprecating:

The Al Smith Dinner may have been the liveliest show in New York last Thursday, as presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore donned white tie and took turns poking fun at themselves and each other in speeches that at times had the audience, and Archbishop Egan, in stitches.

There is far too much refuse from Moore for me to cover, and it's been done by others. My point regarding Moore is that every bit of his work tends to be is distorted, twisted, and carefully selected to fit the worldview of a disingenuous Ideologue. So, yes, there may be some truths in his work, but how is one to tell? And if one can't tell, then all his work is not to be bothered with, unless it makes you feel superior to everyone else, which is the only reason people would still believe him.

Finally, I'm going to liberally quote from Christopher Hitchens' review of F 911 , Unfairenheit 9/11:

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Still, at least Moore isn't a crazy as this guy. I wonder if pseudologia fantastica is contagious?

* Though he frequently is guilty of Stacking the Deck, Observational Selection, False Positioning, Personal Abuse, Browbeating, False Analogies, False Attribution, Impugning Motives, okay, I'm sick of listing almost every fallacy we cover, but you get the picture.


More Moore:
... the Awful Truth
...Handsome-ature
... observational selection

Examples of Misuse of Information

The advocate misunderstands or deliberately misuses a statistic, fact or theory to support an argument.

• Mean, Median and Sex
• Women and maths don’t add up
• Michael Moore denies he has pseudologia fantastica…

For a comprehensive and considered written commentary on Misuse of Information (and other fallacies) - see The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking - Humbug!

Podcast: Tutorial 04 - Misuse of Information



Here's the link to direct download: (46 mins & 17 mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/or by clicking one of the buttons below.

Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:

_____________

Internal Tag: Misuse of Information