Understanding Data Reports

How do you feel when someone claims that a medical journal or scientific article ‘proves’ their anti-Christian or anti-Biblical opinion? In order to back up their claim they start quoting different authors, programs or studies which are ‘the most current research.’ The facts and figures they quote seem to bear up what they say, despite how those claims might contradict the Word of God. Many believers feel frustrated when they keep hearing things that would seem to give credence to what atheists (and anti-theists) keep repeating. Is there a way for you to tell if what they are saying is simply personal opinion or real, verifiable information? The answer is YES, you can! Understanding data reports is key to appraising and interpreting information contained in these papers; to validate for yourself what is real versus what is only assumed (or wished for).

Data by itself is neither good nor bad; it is simply data. It’s what people do with that data that makes the difference! The data and evidence for a particular subject (e.g. Creation vs. Evolution) is most often the same data and evidence used to justify both beliefs. What about the person who claims that sexual orientation has been ‘proven’ to be genetic in origin, while quoting some ‘study’ they looked at? Does the data really support that claim? Did they reach that conclusion because it’s where the data led them, or did they insert their own personal bias? How can you tell the difference between a conclusive presentation of evidence versus a collection of facts that don’t really prove anything? The world (at least the western world) is becoming more and more technical, and knowledge abounds. Given that fact, we must know how to understand scientific, medical and technical papers if we are to rightly separate the ‘wheat’ from the ‘chaff’ of opinions and conclusions.

By authoring a study or report, individuals or groups present findings which add to the body of knowledge we have regarding what we know. This is true in any major field of study. However, what people infer (deduce, assume or extrapolate) from the information presented may be completely unverified by the data. Just because someone states something about the information does not make their conclusions true. History is full of those who have drawn the wrong conclusions from ‘science,’ such as those who could prove ‘scientifically and medically’ that the white race was superior to other races. What they stated was scientifically and factually untrue, yet many people bought into it because it was ‘proven’ by science. In reality, some people abused the information available simply to try and ‘prove’ their point of view. How does this apply today? Many times we hear of a ‘scientific study’ or ‘report’ which seems to validate something that a person might claim (such as the theory of evolution, the normality of homosexuality, historical events or persons, etc.). They may quote from the study, claiming that it offers ‘scientific/medical/historical evidence’ that what they claim is true. Because many people are unfamiliar with how to understand such data, they conclude that what the person claims must be true. After all, it’s in a scientific report – right?

That is not true science, but the opposite, it’s anti-science! In fact Charles Darwin – of all people – made an interesting statement which dealt with true science compared to false science, and how people view and interpret data;

“False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.”

Throwing around facts and figures or citing some paper in a conversation gives people an aura of certainty and credibility, especially if the other person is unfamiliar with the subject being discussed. They seem so sure and confident that what they state is true, and then they supposedly back it up by ‘facts.’ Sometimes the interpretation is not just untrue (because everyone can make mistakes), it is downright deceitful! I am often confronted with this issue. These people are very convincing, until I actually read their ‘supporting’ data. As soon as I am able to look at the reports/studies for myself, I find out that what these people claim was not the truth. In fact, sometimes the people making these claims misuse and misrepresent the data to suit their own ends. They are clever, and if you didn’t know any better you’d swear they were accurate in their interpretation. So then, how can we assess the information we are presented with, validating the valid and calling out those who try to misuse that very same data? There are a few things we can do to separate fact from misrepresentation;

1. Who is the presentation authored by? Is it a reputable organization (like the AMA, JAMA, NOAA, an educational institution, etc.), a notable individual, or just someone who has an agenda to push? Even when published by reputable institutions or people, mistakes can happen. Sometimes the stuff that people try to pass off as science is just a collection of half-truths, myths and/or outright lies. Let the reader beware!

2. How big is the sample size (n), or group, under study? There is a significant statistical difference when analyzing a group of 20 vs. a group of 2000. A small sample size has a much higher rate of variance, meaning the information collected may be easily skewed one way or the other; the larger the sample size the smaller the chance of variance in data.

3. What are the characteristics of the sample group being studied? Do the members of the group share any specific conditions, such as are they all males? Are they all females? Are they all white, all black, or mixed? Are they all in the same economic class? What are their ages? By focusing on a group with too many shared characteristics you run the risk of ‘finding what you’re looking for,’ as in a recent study which supposedly showed homosexuality is organic in origin. They use a relatively small sample group (less than 300), all homosexuals, and almost all twins.

4. Are there outside influences which might have altered the sample group being studied? An example is such that, would you want to study a group for liver health and use a sample group consisting of alcoholics? Probably not. Stress levels, standard of living, environmental factors, diet and lifestyle practices are just a few of the considerations to look at when judging a sample’s characteristics.

5. Are the study parameters easily reproducible by others? One of the key features of true science is that experiments, studies and sampling are put to the test by many others. This re-examination should arrive at the same conclusions as the original study. The more continuity found in the results of secondary research, the more valid the findings. Conversely, if different results are reached then the whole original study is put into question.

6. “A single bone does not a skeleton make.” There are many instances in ‘science’ where supposed anthropological proof was later found out to be pure fabrication. Be sure you really do some further research for yourself, and you won’t fall for idiocy like this!

Another recent example of people misapplying – or even misrepresenting – scientific data is found in the supposed ‘proof’ that homosexuality is genetic. In 1991 Simon LeVay published a paper that immediately made headlines. Homosexual activists, the news media and many others purported that there was conclusive ‘proof’ that sexual orientation was genetic – that people are ‘born that way.’ It’s interesting to note that LeVay himself didn’t reach those conclusions, and yet the people repeating those claims the loudest seemed to have it ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ about it! However, if you investigate a little further you find alternatives to the hype surrounding all this “proof.” The Family Research Institute has published a well thought out and straightforward analysis of the study mentioned here. Look at the two examples here, paying particular attention to the way the supposed “proof” was represented (and proclaimed) vs. the analysis presented, which contradicts that proclaimed ‘truth.’

The thing to remember most of all is this, the Word of God stands sure. If something doesn’t seem ‘right’ to you (as a child of God), then something may be wrong! As we sincerely seek the truth then that truth will eventually find its way to us. By prayerful consideration, and by asking some simple questions, we can avoid some of the blunders that people make in understanding data reports.