In March
2009, the Spanish Directorate General of Traffic made the following announcement
in the media: 22% of those who died in traffic accidents were
not wearing seat belts. To save lives, everyone is recommended to use them.
Expressed in
this way, the data are ambiguous. One might argue in this way: if just 22% of
the victims were not wearing the seat belt, then a number over three times larger
(78%) were in fact wearing seat belts when they died in an accident. Therefore it
looks like it would better not to use the seat belt at all.
I’ll
explain why this conclusion is fallacious. In order to draw the correct
conclusion out of the data, one fact is missing: with or
without accidents, how many people do use the seat belt and how many don’t?
This piece of data can be found, although it took me some time and effort: 95%
drivers do wear the seat belt, just 5% don’t. Combining this with the original data,
we can compute the probability of dying in an accident with and without the
seat belts: it is over 4 times higher among those who do not wear it than among
those who do. If everybody used it, the number of deaths could decrease by 18%.
Therefore the advice given was sound, although the data were incomplete.
Given how this
news was presented, I feel moved to complain about the way in which politicians
and the media use statistics and incorrectly report scientific data. If I do
that, am I doing politics? Or am I defending science?
In 1897, in
the USA, the Indiana House of Representatives approved (by 67 votes against none)
Bill#246, which stated that the value of pi in
that state would be equal to 3.2 (it said literally “that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as
five-fourths to four,” i.e. 1 divided by pi = 5/4 divided by 4 = 1 / 3.2, ergo pi = 3.2). The project went to the Senate, where
it was not even presented, due to the active opposition of Clarence Abiathar
Waldo, professor of mathematics at Purdue. Was Professor Waldo doing politics when
he opposed a bill that had been passed unanimously? Or was he doing science?
When scientists
fight for their right to conscientious objection,
when they refuse to work in the production of poisonous gases, anti-personnel
mines or nuclear weapons, or to perform experiments on human beings without
their consent, are they doing politics? Shouldn’t there be an ethical dimension
of science?
When supporters of abortion resort to anti-scientific statements, such as that the
embryo is not a human being, or that the embryo is a part of the body of the
mother, or that the embryo is just a collection of cells (what are then the adults?),
if scientists claim that these statements are false and defend the right of
physicians to conscientious objection, are they doing politics? Or are they
doing science?The same post in Spanish
Thematic Thread on Science in General: Previous Next
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment