STATISTICS
If you used statistics, and if your opponent attacked your use of statistics in any manner, then your defense should be as follows.
On the one hand, if he accuses you of not using a random, representative, or adequate sample, you counter this by asking him to define what a random sample is. He will be unable to define a random sample.
Statistical information consists of a mathematically expressed relationship between two or more things. However, no amount of statistical information can establish an invariable or causal relationship between two or more things without independent evidence. The whole point of using statistical evidence is that it is only used when we do not know the direct connection or complex of connections among things. But without the theory, the evidence makes no sense. Hence, statistical evidence by itself does not prove or disprove anything, but together with other pieces of information it may be meaningful. Anyone who attacks your statistical evidence and ignores the rest of your case can have this truth pointed out to him and to the audience.
On the other hand, if your opponent attacks the use of statistics in general, you may provide a counterexample to show how silly that would be. Suppose there were a dread disease that did not exist among a certain portion of the population because they ate a certain food. In other words, a high statistical correlation exists between a food and the absence of a disease. Wouldn't you eat that food even though the direct connection is unknown to you?
As for the charge that you either neglected or suppressed certain facts, you may make the counter-charge by introducing some facts that you had not mentioned before and turning the question on your adversary. Why didn't he mention that information? This, by the way, reinforces an earlier point we made about saving some ammunition for later instead of using everything in your inital presentation.
On the one hand, if he accuses you of not using a random, representative, or adequate sample, you counter this by asking him to define what a random sample is. He will be unable to define a random sample.
Statistical information consists of a mathematically expressed relationship between two or more things. However, no amount of statistical information can establish an invariable or causal relationship between two or more things without independent evidence. The whole point of using statistical evidence is that it is only used when we do not know the direct connection or complex of connections among things. But without the theory, the evidence makes no sense. Hence, statistical evidence by itself does not prove or disprove anything, but together with other pieces of information it may be meaningful. Anyone who attacks your statistical evidence and ignores the rest of your case can have this truth pointed out to him and to the audience.
On the other hand, if your opponent attacks the use of statistics in general, you may provide a counterexample to show how silly that would be. Suppose there were a dread disease that did not exist among a certain portion of the population because they ate a certain food. In other words, a high statistical correlation exists between a food and the absence of a disease. Wouldn't you eat that food even though the direct connection is unknown to you?
As for the charge that you either neglected or suppressed certain facts, you may make the counter-charge by introducing some facts that you had not mentioned before and turning the question on your adversary. Why didn't he mention that information? This, by the way, reinforces an earlier point we made about saving some ammunition for later instead of using everything in your inital presentation.
Comments