Be wary of stats.org

Home > Statistics Every Writer Should Know > The Stats Board > Discusssion

Be wary of stats.org
Message posted by Robert Niles (via 64.175.184.131) on July 2, 2001 at 1:28 PM (ET)

I'm often asked by reporters to recommend other stats help sites on the Internet, particularly ones aimed at journalists.

Often, these reporters ask me about stats.org--a site run by the "Statistical Assessment Service" in Washington, D.C. I've not recommended this site in the past, since the service is funded by right-wing organizations, many of which have a track record of trying to debunk any research that does not confirm their pro-business, anti-regulation world view.

Today, in Salon, David Appel reviews "It Ain't Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality" from stats.org. Appel looks at stats.org's beginnings, who's funding the group, and shows how the service distorts scientific research, all in the name of criticizing journalists for distorting scientific research.

The problem of "innumeracy" in the press, as John Allen Paulos called it, is real. Journalists must better learn the rules of research and understand the logic of math.

Unfortunately, efforts by ideologues such as stats.org will only further confuse and frustrate journalists.

Disguising ideology as objectivity eventually undermines the ideal of objectivity--and, ultimately, all research.

READERS RESPOND:
(In chronological order. Most recent at the bottom.)

Re: Be wary of stats.org
Message posted by Robert Niles (via 64.175.184.131) on July 2, 2001 at 1:41 PM (ET)

Here is the direct link to Appel's review: "It Ain't Necessarily So" by David Murray, et al.

Re: Be wary of stats.org
Message posted by JG (via 128.8.22.32) on July 3, 2001 at 3:21 AM (ET)

I feel that there in no such thing as absolute objectivity and we need as many points of view as possible arguing with each other to get some idea of what may or may not be true. For instance, the recent tendency of judging movies by how well they do financially is very disturbing although very 'objective'. Surely, there are better ways of deciding what movie to see than which film has made or is making the most money.

Re: Be wary of stats.org
Message posted by matthew (via 208.222.192.2) on July 6, 2001 at 6:17 PM (ET)

“Be wary of all sources” would be more cogent.

Your attack on their funding is nothing more than an ad-hominem, as would be various statements by Appell "Three self-styled experts ...", as would be various similar statements which Appell quotes of stats.org members.
The arguments must stand on their own merits, and while somebody’s funding may raise your eyebrow, they mean nothing in relation to the validity of the arguments offered.
Equally, if you cannot show the total population of funding for them, then how are we to know that the funding by Olin and other “right-wing orgs” was significant? Is “right-wing” funding mutually exclusive with good research, was there any “left-wing” funding, does it matter?

Is Appell really claiming that species are not dying off at slower rates, or that greenhouse effects have slowed or are overstated, and even misstated., seems to me the orthodoxy of years of greens should be as open to question as the claims made by stats.org.

It is good that Appell and yourself alert us to funding issues, but that’s not to say that “big bad corporate sponsors” signifies malfeasance by researchers any more than would “scientifically illiterate dailiness” by deadline and headline fixated media.

I would prefer to see direct rebuttal of claims with evidence and reason, not innuendo and ad-hominem attack.

A pox on both their houses.

Your $5 contribution helps cover part the $500 annual cost of keeping this site online.