Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
You ready to learn more about the exciting topic of Statistical Fallacies? Lol..I’m joking b/c I know this topic can feel kind of dry, but trust me, it’s important! It’s very easy to fool people using fancy doctored numbers and stats, but you want to be able to recognize when those stats might be off, so hopefully this miniseries will help you do that.
But first, let’s start off by reviewing a fallacy we covered earlier this season, the Inconsistency Ad Hominem. The Inconsistency Ad Hominem Fallacy happens when someone’s claim is attacked because the person making the claim is inconsistent. Now, if it were me naming this fallacy, I would call it an Appeal to Inconsistency, but it’s not up to me, so we’re going with the common name of the Inconsistency Ad Hominem, because what this fallacy is doing is attacking the person rather than the argument.
So, the question to ask yourself when you’re facing an Inconsistency Ad Hominem is this: “Does that inconsistency mean their argument isn’t valid?”
If you want to review or hear more about this fallacy, go back & check out Episode 142.
I want to share a quick Math tip from our sponsor, CTC Math. CTC Math is an online math program that goes from K-12 and they offer weekly revision sets to consolidate learning and help identify & work on any gaps. It's like a weekly math check-up & review for your kids! Dive in at ctcmath.com. It’s a great way to make learning math a habit!"
A friend sent me a little infographic just the other day that is a perfect example of a Statistical Fallacy. It says this: Fun Fact: Cows are about 300 times more likely to kill you than coyotes. Ok, we hear these sorts of ‘fun fact’ statistics all the time and sometimes they sound kind of amazing, but sometimes we really need to stop & think about what we’re hearing. This one is about the dangers of dying by cow versus coyote, which is kind of funny…but there’s a subtle statistical fallacy happening here that’s called ‘conditional probability’, meaning that the only reason this is a statistic is because of the conditions surrounding cows & coyotes. Everyday, farmers around the world are working with their cows. They’re caring for them, milking them, rounding them up in corrals, transporting them, etc. but how many people around the world have corrals full of coyotes that they round up, feed, and work with everyday? I don’t know, but I feel like it’s significantly less. If there were the same number of farmers working with their herds of coyotes as there are working with their herds of cattle, this little fun fact stat would likely be very different. See how that works? Fun example of Statistical fallacies! Which, by the way, has a little something to do with the Statistical fallacy we’re talking about today, lol!
So, let’s dive into today’s new fallacy, the Confounding Variable, with Thomas:
Question to ask yourself: “Is it really true that… *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
