This game's toxicity is now off the charts.

[Caurcas]

Well, if the data is 1+1=2, and 1 guy says no its fish, no matter how much he interprets it differently, he's wrong.

Issue with this is that's not data interpretation nor even really data. That's a shallow point being made with math.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Issue with this is that's not data interpretation nor even really data. That's a shallow point being made with math.

Good data tends to only have 1 objective interpretation though. If it's "open ended" it's bad data and shouldn't be used.

At least, scientifically.

Subjective data is different, but that's opinions, and not really the same thing.

[Nethereal]

Good data tends to only have 1 objective interpretation though. If it's "open ended" it's bad data and shouldn't be used.

At least, scientifically.

Subjective data is different, but that's opinions, and not really the same thing.

Plenty of "good math" is used disingenuously by misrepresenting the sample size and just not talking about it. Even if it is brought up and disapproved people will just pretend it didn't happen or it's not real.

Science at this very moment is going backwards. If the data that is being analyzed shows results contrary to the mainstream narrative or the supreme ruler's narrative then the first thing scientist or an institution has to ask themselves isn't "Is the science right?" It's "Am I feeling lucky."

The gender earnings gap is a perfect example.

Women are paid the same(as men) but earn less than men. That simple difference in words is how science is manipulated to a fit a specific narrative.

And if they really want to manipulate data they will simply make the process of understanding how they got that data harder to interpret in their presentation of the data.
Either by poorly explaining something or purposefully over complicating the process they used.

[Awha]

Good data tends to only have 1 objective interpretation though. If it's "open ended" it's bad data and shouldn't be used.

At least, scientifically.

Subjective data is different, but that's opinions, and not really the same thing.

Even objective data can be misrepresented either by willful ignorance or malicious intent to create a narrative that supports a preconceived postion.

That is what I was getting take anti vaxxer's from an objective PoV the data supports the beneficial aspects of vaccines. Yet unfortunately as a society we are forced to lament over the fact no matter how pointless or dumb a stance may be the fact is people will have an opposing stance and just due to seer number of people that hold such a stance we have to take their perspective into account which to a degree provides some validation to their stance.

That is at the very least what I was getting at when I said depending on who you ask any group could be seen as a hate group. Even if objectively it may be false facts and logic are not the corner stones of general discourse for the general public.