On 6/3/2019 12:07 PM, Duane wrote:

snip

Most people would refer to that as incomplete data.

Perhaps, but I would distinguish between making conclusions based on
data that is presented as incomplete, or is obviously incomplete when
published, and making conclusions based on data that is complete when
published but where false conclusions are drawn based on using that data
in a misleading way.

Of course in r.b.t. we see both of these happening. I also see this on
an almost daily basis as an elected official, but fortunately I live in
a city with a highly educated citizenry who are unlikely to be taken in
by this sort of misuse of data.

In some cases perfect data isn't available and never will be. There is
simply not going to be a double blind study on every possible subject in
the world--in some cases it's not possible and in some cases when it is
possible there will be no one interested enough to fund such a study. If
a thousand ER doctors tell you that helmeted cyclists fare better in
head-impact crashes than unhelmeted cyclists then you're probably going
to believe them over someone who insists that helmets are worthless. In
both cases there is incomplete data, but in one case there is
credibility of those making the statements. If a police captain explains
to you that you're better off making yourself more conspicuous while
bicycling then you're probably going to believe him or her versus
someone that insists that being more conspicuous is of no value, even
though the data to prove this is incomplete.