There does need to be some level of interpretation, though. Raw facts often lack an important “why” component that can mislead a poorly informed observer. For instance, white supremacists love to cite black crime statistics. Those statistics aren’t necessarily wrong, but they need the context of centuries of racial oppression. Or comparing how much women make to how much men make. There is a significant wage gap, so some people point to that as evidence of outright sexism. But it nearly disappears once you correct for different life choices (e.g. different sectors, time off for children), so others say there should be no action. The reality lies in the middle. Society is structured in such a way as to create this wage gap. Some things are relatively simple, like maternal leave but not paternal leave. Other things are more complicated, like predominantly female sectors usually paying less. And sometimes, yes, you do run into outright sexism.
There does need to be some level of interpretation, though.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, however…
For instance, white supremacists love to cite black crime statistics.
Because the interpretation they give those statistics justifies their ideology. (As you know)
What is important is to make clear the interrelation of facts, and not to merely present obtuse statistics. One might call this interpretation, and i won’t argue semantics. Once the interrelation of things is known on a factual basis, the range of seemingly valid interpretations narrows considerably, increasing the likelihood that an individual can make meaningful judgements on a given topic. This degree of information ofc takes time, but given how much time I’ve seen ideologues babble nonsense and call it news, i’d actually be inclined to say time isn’t the issue.
There does need to be some level of interpretation, though. Raw facts often lack an important “why” component that can mislead a poorly informed observer. For instance, white supremacists love to cite black crime statistics. Those statistics aren’t necessarily wrong, but they need the context of centuries of racial oppression. Or comparing how much women make to how much men make. There is a significant wage gap, so some people point to that as evidence of outright sexism. But it nearly disappears once you correct for different life choices (e.g. different sectors, time off for children), so others say there should be no action. The reality lies in the middle. Society is structured in such a way as to create this wage gap. Some things are relatively simple, like maternal leave but not paternal leave. Other things are more complicated, like predominantly female sectors usually paying less. And sometimes, yes, you do run into outright sexism.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, however…
Because the interpretation they give those statistics justifies their ideology. (As you know)
What is important is to make clear the interrelation of facts, and not to merely present obtuse statistics. One might call this interpretation, and i won’t argue semantics. Once the interrelation of things is known on a factual basis, the range of seemingly valid interpretations narrows considerably, increasing the likelihood that an individual can make meaningful judgements on a given topic. This degree of information ofc takes time, but given how much time I’ve seen ideologues babble nonsense and call it news, i’d actually be inclined to say time isn’t the issue.