It was put on my mind with a forum post, but I wondered, why do certain writings on this website use statistics like GDP and such as support for their arguments, while others condemn the use of these things? Can anyone resolve this cognative dissonance?
too lazy to use pure logic, must resort to statistics. But also the statistics 1) clarify the propriety of applying a theory and 2) statistics can illustrate an argument and instantiate a theory.
-
While statistics can not prove a theory, they can illustrate it.
-
Statistics gives intuitive support to theories. It is always possible to make mistakes in theory. Gathering empirical data can give some certainty as to whether or not the theorist is on the right track or not.
-
If one’s goal is to persuade others, empirical data is often more comprehensible than pure theory. If one were to try to convince a guy on the street that the PythagoreanTheory is true, it would probably be easier to show 2 or three examples, rather than an elaborate proof which looks like a foreign language to him.
-
If one is engaging in entrepreneurial prediction, both theory and data is necessary to estimate future conditions. Some authors guess the future chain of events.
Just my thoughts.
As long as the user of statistics does not fall into one of these traps: 1. Correlation = Causality and 2. Statistics do not prove theory they can only disprove it. Several well known examples are: The presence of a stork may be correlated to a woman having a baby. A Major League Baseball Owner can simply outspend the competition to win a championship.