statistics aren't x therefore the statistic is true
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
This is an interesting phenomena that I've observed, the format usually goes like this
P1: Makes claim, and supports that claim statistics.
P2: Rebuts P1 claims, outlines how the statistics is misleading/and or was collected in a biased manner.
P1: Statistics aren't [insert x] (for instance "racist"), therefore your premise is wrong.
Another side question I have is: someone makes sweeping generalization x, then when rebutted against they counter with, MOST of x are y, therefore my sweeping generalization is correct. The format of this will usually be:
P1: All liberals believe that killing babies is morally correct.
P2: On the instance of morality, not all liberals believe that, it is a sweeping generalization.
P3: Sure not all liberal believe that, but most liberals do, making my original statement correct.
Comments on Question
Statistics can be misleading or skewed to support a claim but are not morally biases. They are just numbers. It would be like calling your washing machine racist. You are trying to give human qualities to something that is not human.
The second one is moving the goal post.
Answers
2The first one is ignoratio elenchi. No one suggested that statistics were racist (they can't be), but they can be used in a racist manner to make arguments in favour of racist beliefs. However, even this wasn't necessarily the point of person 2; they were explaining how the stats were wrong.
The second example: first, note the misleading language (appeal to emotion). It's in the snuck premise "liberals believe killing babies is morally correct". What liberals actually support is abortion, which applies to foetuses. A baby could be anything between an embryo and a live new-born, but you'd be hard-pressed to find liberals who support "killing" the latter. So this isn't even a valid representation of what liberals believe, making it not only a desperate emotional appeal, but also a strawman fallacy. The use of "all" makes it even more fallacious, because there is no way to possibly know that (amazing familiarity).
Next, P1 claims that, while not "all" liberals do, "most" do, making the statement correct. This is still baseless (see my above analysis; pretty much no one supports just 'killing babies'). Also, "all" kinda means "all". If you're admitting that it's "most" instead, you're admitting your original statement was wrong. Thus, we have a non sequitur.
P1: All liberals believe that killing babies is morally correct.
P2: On the instance of morality, not all liberals believe that, it is a sweeping generalization.
P3: Sure not all liberal believe that, but most liberals do, making my original statement correct.
Looks like moving the goal post maybe?.....or ad hoc rescue??
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Every statistics textbook explains how to collect and analyze stats accurately. Yes, numbers are often misused. Or misinterpreted.