Is That a Fact? - Second Edition: A Field Guide to Statistical and Scientific InformationHow much should we trust the polls on the latest electoral campaign? When a physician tells us that a diagnosis of cancer is 90% certain or a nutritionist tells us what is healthy to eat, what should we believe? Questions such as these are greatly important, yet many of us have only a vague sense of how to answer them. In Is That a Fact?, Mark Battersby aims not only to explain how to identify misleading statistics and research, but also to give readers the understanding necessary to evaluate and use statistical information in their own decision making. This second edition is revised and updated throughout and includes a new chapter on weighing risk in personal and public decision making. |
Contents
Introduction | 1 |
How to Live with Statistics Why We Need to Think about Statistical and Scientific Information | 5 |
Introduction to Critical Thinking | 13 |
Polling The Basics | 27 |
Sampling Woes and Other Biases | 41 |
The Facts Maam Nothing but the Facts Getting Good Data | 61 |
Making Senseof Data What Does It All Mean? | 75 |
The Power of Graphs | 93 |
Finding the Cause Evaluating Causal Claims | 131 |
Evaluating Scientific Claims Looking at the Context | 155 |
Using What Youve Learned Finding and Evaluating Scientific Information | 177 |
Probability and Judgment | 203 |
Studies Show but So What? | 221 |
DecisionMaking Examples Individual Risk Uncertainty and Public Policy | 241 |
Glossary | 263 |
| 277 | |
Other editions - View all
Is That a Fact?: A Field Guide for Evaluating Statistical and Scientific ... Mark Battersby No preview available - 2009 |
Common terms and phrases
absolute risk accident actually appropriate argument asked assessing associated average benefits bias biased biased sample breast cancer British Medical Journal Canadians causal claim causal relationship cause cellphone cent chance Chapter compared confounding factors consumption control group correlation costs credible crime Critical Question decision discussed disease drinking drug effect evaluate evidence example experimental experiments explanation exposure fallacy Figure flip graph heart attacks incidence increase inference involved Ipsos-Reid Kyoto Kyoto Accord Kyoto Protocol likelihood look lung cancer margin of error means meta-analysis million misleading non-smokers observational studies outcomes Passive Smoking people’s percentage poll pollsters population POWER OF GRAPHS probability problem prostate cancer random sample reason relative risk relevant reliable reported scientific scientists second-hand smoke skeptical smoking and lung statistically significant Statistics Canada subjects survey tion tobacco understanding women