Philip Lewis wrote:
> You raise some valid points but an even more important factor is
which
> statistics gets the mainstream publicity. For example the lie that
women
> only get x amount of cents (usually quoted as between 70 - 80 cents
on the
> dollar) for every dollar that men earn is 'proof' of discrimination
against
> women in the workplace has been thoroughly debunked countless times -
yet
> this 'statistic' is still been spread all across the mainstream media
to
> this day.

If statistics can be manipulated to prove a 'fact', regardless of the
'fact's' accuracy or inaccuracy, then how can a statistic like the one
you mentioned ever be truly debunked? Wouldn't it be possible to
manipulate that data as well? Understand I'm not arguing for the
accuracy or inaccuracy of the statistic in question, just wondering
about the reliability of statistics in general.

At some point, things like the world being flat and the center of the
universe were regarded as 'fact'...makes it hard to know what to
believe, if fact is just another way to say 'belief that may at some
point be debunked'.

As far as what facts and statistics get mainstream publicity, that's
why I don't automatically believe everything I read or see on the
television. Just because a whole bunch of people believe something
doesn't make it true. Is it even possible to report the 'facts' of a
situation without some hint of bias, whether it be gender, race,
socio-economic, etc..? So much for 'impartial' news reports.
Everything's had some spin put on it; it's inescapable.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/17/05 3:35:42 PM ---