“Statistics conceal as much as they reveal.

” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of

INTRODUCTION
'We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge.' Wrote the writer John Naisbitt in his
1982 book Megatrends. Although the book was written over thirty years ago, its message still loudly
resonates with contemporary society, if not more so with the persistent growth of global
communicative technology. Despite an abundance of information being readily available, this
information may not directly translate to holistically verifiable knowledge and may conceal as much
as it reveals. This essay is based on the validity of that assertion, with a specific emphasis on
statistics: Does statistical information enhance knowledge or does it inhibit a more exhaustive
comprehension? This essay will explore the question in the context of the human and natural sciences,
two areas of knowledge which complement each other through their contrasting principles: natural
science statistics are arguably constructed on empirical, scientific knowledge, whereas human science
statistics evoke a more personal bias that may leave their verification less objectifiable and
consequently more equipped to conceal information.

Claim 1:
 Knowledge in the natural sciences is highly dependant on scientific and mathematical data
and statistics are the most effective form of presenting this.
o Statistics effectively communicate scientific data in a format that is accessible
o Scientific methods- how they are employed to obtain scientific and mathematical data,
evolution of scientific results to stats
o RLS COVID-19 19 statistics UK- how simple format enables whole of UK to interpret data,
how this is then basis for health related decisions.
o Statistics compared to a written report- visual stimulus as a more effective communicator.
Include psychology reference supporting this.
o Exclusive use of numerical data allows information to be openly interpreted and eliminates
opportunity to use language/other non-scientific forms to influence information.
Counterclaim 1:
 Statistics in the natural sciences are not the most effective form of presenting scientific and
mathematical knowledge.
 Statistics used selectively to create an inaccurate picture
 RLS Covid 19 statistics US: US claim to be leading the world in covid 19 management with
the highest testing- these statistics do not account for US having highest mortality/infection
rate.
 Statistics not accompanied by other data eg written explanation may be less accessible to
people
 Statistics do not include contextual information which may be instrumental to understanding
 Ethical knowledge considerations- may not account for ethical component encompassed
within natural sciences
 “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.”― Mark Twain- debate this

Claim 2:
 Statistics in the field of human sciences can be manipulated more easily than the natural
sciences because they involve a human element that is absent from natural science statistics.
 o RLS- US election statistics- consider ways that different analysis’ concealed information and
how people may have been manipulated based on how the human science statists aligned with
their personal knowledge systems, i.e. Political views.
o Address how political, economic and social motivations can be concealed behind selective
statistics- use examples to support this
o Support reference or study that addresses these elements in statistics
o Use human nature supporting reference- human inclination towards being unbiased
o Further this- conduct research on statistics and consider how their source influences their
content
Counterclaim 2:
 Statistics in the field of human sciences are more difficult to manipulate than those in the
natural sciences because they involve human element.
o Contrast between natural science statistics, where data is based on scientific method
compared to human experience. Also discuss source- HS source more criticised than NS
source, for example a scientific investigation or unregulated “collected” data.
o As the information relates to the human experience harder to manipulate as people have their
own initial judgements/inferences already so won’t blindly accept data
o Further exploration of this- how human experience fits in to personal knowledge system and
its influence on how people perceive HS statistics compared to NS stats
o RLS: Situation where HS statistics were widely criticised, e.g. Trump approval rating

Conclusion
To readdress the intrinsic enigma that is the nature of statistics: do they inhibit knowledge or enhance
understanding? And should statistics be evaluated differently based on their area of knowledge, or
does their universal format evoke a holistic response? This essay has distinguished between statistics
in the natural and social sciences and reaches the conclusion that the transparency of statistics is only
partially dependant on the area of knowledge. Statistics formed through quantitative data obtained
with the Scientific Method may be more definitive than those obtained through qualitative human
science data that records opinions in society, from the singular basis that scientific data is less
corruptible than human data through its method of accumulation. However, areas of knowledge play a
subsidiary role in addressing the value of statistics- fundamentally the essay sought to understand if
cross-disciplinary statistical information is an inclusive form of knowledge or if it inhibits a more
holistic comprehension. This essay has demonstrated that statistics are not a sufficient knowledge
source alone and should be complementary to independent contextual information. So, they
ineffective as an inclusive knowledge source but not necessarily limiting in understanding, alongside
another form of contextual knowledge. This is how they are most pragmatically employed, as
Illustrated in this quote “Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for
support than illumination”- A Lang.