What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is minor one, but annoys me how comnmon this is: light is made out of litle packets of energy called photons.

    Here is a good video on the topic: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SDtAh9IwG-I (Too lazy didn’t watch: Light is an electromagnetc wave and is is not quantized. Only the interactions between atoms and light are quantized)

  • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since the invention of seatbelts there have been a larger number of serious injuries from car accidents.

    This sounds like seatbelts are causing serious injury but in fact, these serious injuries used to be deaths. That statistics is never mentioned causing it to be misleading, just like they never mention how many bugles are in the car when an accident happens

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    In places where more storks live, you also have more babies.

    After the Corona lockdowns there was an increase in infections with the common cold. Researches tried to explain how this is connected to the immune system and a lot of people now assume you have to “train” your immune system with exposure to pathogens. Or that your immune system falls out of training (like a muscle) if you stop exposing it to pathogens regularly. A potentially dangerous misunderstanding.

    People often draw false conclusions from reduced information about a fact. For example: Babies who are kept in one position for hours each day over weeks or months show developmental delay. For some reason this information got shortened so much that a lot of people (in Germany at least) now assume baby seats are hurting babies backs.

  • Ben@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    ‘true fact’.

    • Facts cannot be anything except for true.
    • Anyone who uses the two words ‘true fact’ together cannot be trusted because they know neither the meaning of the word ‘true’ or the word ‘fact’.
      • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine trying to move by riding a unicycle backwards and throwing up through a giant straw. That is how the nautilus do.

      • Ben@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s very negative, however I must concur that it’s a fact the correlative conjunctions were incorrectly placed to negate the possibilities.

        Whether that fact is true or not is up to you.

    • JackGreenEarth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Facts are just objective statements, which can be either true or false, but whichever they are it is objective and not dependant on the observer.

      I mean, it’s a semantic argument, and semantics is subjective, but that’s probably how the people who say ‘true fact’ are defining fact.

      • lorez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, a statement can be true or false. A fact is always true.

          • lorez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            No it’s not or we’ll bicker over every word and square could mean triangle. We have agreed upon word definitions. That’s part of a language.

              • lorez@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That doesn’t mean that word definitions are absolutely not arbitrary nor subjective. They are agreed upon in a civilization at any given time. I don’t have to deal with anything.

  • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Vending machines are more deadly than sharks”.

    While it’s true that (at least for some years) more people are killed by vending machine accidents than shark attacks, your personal risk depends on what you do. If you’re a vending machine factory worker who never goes into the ocean, you’re far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a shark. But if you live in a part of the world that doesn’t have vending machines and you swim in the ocean every day, the reverse is true.

  • OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know if this counts, since it’s only a “true fact” if you are fine with carefully chosen words and the omission of crucial information…

    But the 13-50 stat is dangerously misleading.

    You know,

    Black people make up 13% of the population, but 50% of the violent crime.

    Note: these days, black people are 16% of the U.S. population. I’ll be referring to it as 16 from this point on.

    Black people in America do, in fact, make up 50% of the murder arrests according to FBI crime statistics

    That much is true.

    But certain people tend to use this fact to assert that police officers are far more likely to be killed by black people than by white people. Therefore, the stats that show them brutalizing black people are a higher rate – since they fall short of that 50% number – are evidence that they hold back around black people to avoid appearing racist.

    The users of this stat heavily imply black people are more violent and murder-prone, and hence a greater threat. The argument also carries with it an implied benefit to eugenics or a return to slavery (to anyone paying attention.)

    But no one using this stat ever explores potential causes for the arrest rate disparity, instead letting their viewers assume it comes from “black culture” (if they are closeted racists) or “bad genes” (if they are open racists).

    There’s no attention paid to the fact that black people make up over half of overturned wrongful convictions

    There’s no attention paid to the stats further down in that same FBI crime stats table that make it clear that black people make up 25% of the nation’s drug arrests, despite making up close to 16% of the US’s total drug users. (Their population’s rate of drug use is within a margin of error of white people’s rate of drug use). It should be strange they make up such an outsized portion of the total drug arrests in this country.

    There’s no attention paid to the fact that more than half of US murders go unsolved, meaning even assuming impartial sentencing and prosecution, we would only know black people committed 50% OF 50% of the murders – 25%. And in a country where 98% of the land is owned by white people and the public defender system is in shambles? Which demographic do you think would be overrepresented in the “unsolved murder” category? The murder arrest rate winds up just being a measure of which demographics can afford the best lawyers, rather than any proportional representation of each demographic’s tendencies.

    There’s also no appreciation given for the fact that of the 511 felony murders committed against police from 2010 to 2019, 55 of them (or 10.8%) were committed by black people, meaning police are no more likely to get killed by a black person than a white person.

    None of that. The people hawking this statistic intentionally lead their viewers to assume, “arrested for murder” is equivalent to “guilty of murder.” And that the entire demographic can be safely assumed to be more dangerous.

    • hierophant_nihilant@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Omfg, thank you so much for this. I find it repulsive that pos 9gaggers post 50/13 as a mantra to every post that includes black people, but no one would really want to understand from where those numbers come up😡

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The thing about this is that the kind of people who quote statistics like that typically don’t have an interest in all of that. They start with a racist assertion, then search for anything that appears to corroborate. They have no interest in actually understanding the statistic, they only care about it insofar as they believe it justifies their racism.

      That, or they know it doesn’t and they’re purposely arguing in bad faith.

      • OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah… that’s a pretty reasonable conclusion. It’s hard to just state outright though, when I live with the exact sort of person described in your comment.

        It’s interesting: the people who are fine with calling an entire race murderous seem to take great umbrage at being considered “racist.”

        It’s the r-word to them – a slur used to invalidate their concerns and diminish the importance of their well-being.

        That their concerns ought to be invalidated – since they are the racist result of racist fear-mongering – is never well-received.

    • grue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The real bottom line is that when you create an underclass of people whose neighborhoods get firebombed or bulldozed when they get too affluent (see e.g. “Black Wall Street” in Tulsa and Auburn Avenue (formerly “the richest Negro street in the world”) in Atanta, respectively) and had generations of absent fathers due to persecution for things like “vagrancy”, of course they’re going to stop giving a shit about laws that bind but do not protect them! It’s entirely rational that people systematically excluded from being able to get ahead while acting within the law, and whose behaviors are deliberately criminalized in order to target them, would end up committing crimes at higher rates than the people benefiting from their oppression did. In other words, even if it’s true that they actually commit crimes at higher rates (as opposed to being accused at higher rates or being less likely to avoid conviction, as you pointed out, which just make the statistical bias even worse by compounding on top), even that is disingenous because it ignores that the disparity is caused by classism and institutional racism, not anything intrinsic to their race itself. The fiction that it’s somehow their own fault is like a society-wide version of “stop hitting yourself.”

      • OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh 100% this. The main accomplishment of Tulsa and Auburn was keeping black people impoverished, and…

        “About 60 [academic] papers show that a very common result of greater inequality is more violence, usually measured by homicide rates,” says Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level and co-founder of the Equality Trust. - source

        For as long as society insists on high inequality with one race forcefully held at the bottom, no rational person can expect that race to be peaceful.

        It’s just… I have a hard time bringing this concept to the table in a debate with people who believe “personal responsibility” can somehow magically indemnify society against its impact on people.

        In fact, I am generally speechless when debating such people. It’s such an alien worldview to me. How can personal responsibility actually make society irrelevant? And since when?

        The kinds of people who spout the 13-50 argument basically believe NOTHING society does can increase or decrease murder (except, when convenient, being “too soft on children” or “soft on crime.”)

    • humanreader@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve seen similar stuff multiple times, often with misquoted statistics. What many miss is that context is as important as stats.

  • President_Pyrus@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

    Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.

    Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.

    Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.

    DHMO is a major component of acid rain.

    Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.

    Contributes to soil erosion.

    Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.

    Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.

    Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.

    Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

    Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.

    Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.

    Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

    https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS