The researchers conclude that data visualizations aren’t sufficient to convey the urgency of the Covid-19 pandemic, because even the clearest graphs can be interpreted through a variety of belief systems.
The scientists are still trying to do the exact same thing, even in this study.
The clearest of graphs can't be "interpreted through a variety of belief systems" and still create useful results, though, so the "scientists" are clearly doing some kind of soft philosophy, not science.
Let's say you've got a graph of time passing per minute. The most clear graph imaginable: Every second, the graph goes up a second, and resets on a minute turnover. The graph concretely proves with an r=1 that in Africa, every 60 seconds, a minute passes, within the sample data.
Interpret it through a variety of belief systems, and the only answer you'll get is a wrong one, except if your belief system is simply "the data is accurate". Gambler's Fallacy Lens? It's been 60 seconds per minute too many times in a row, it's gotta be different next one! ...Nope. Doomer Lens? The world's ending in the next 60 seconds, so it won't be 60 seconds to a minute... Wait, damn, a minute passed.
If your graph is being misinterpreted nonmaliciously, you made a bad graph. If you show that Texas and California have the same COVID death and infection rates despite completely different mitigation measures, the graph showing such is simply showing such. The scientist drawing a DIFFERENT conclusion than what the graph clearly states, is simply ignoring the data. That's not "interpreting through a belief system", it's malicious ignorance.
remember when the media was trying to say that the scientifically literary right was pushing misinformation by "misusing" data to make claims?
The scientists are still trying to do the exact same thing, even in this study.
“Belief systems”, that verbiage just screams far leftist.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE OBJECTIVE TRUTH IS HUUUUUUUYYYYYTE SUPREMACY!!!!!!!!!*
*leftist commie pinko faggots actually believe this
The clearest of graphs can't be "interpreted through a variety of belief systems" and still create useful results, though, so the "scientists" are clearly doing some kind of soft philosophy, not science.
Let's say you've got a graph of time passing per minute. The most clear graph imaginable: Every second, the graph goes up a second, and resets on a minute turnover. The graph concretely proves with an r=1 that in Africa, every 60 seconds, a minute passes, within the sample data.
Interpret it through a variety of belief systems, and the only answer you'll get is a wrong one, except if your belief system is simply "the data is accurate". Gambler's Fallacy Lens? It's been 60 seconds per minute too many times in a row, it's gotta be different next one! ...Nope. Doomer Lens? The world's ending in the next 60 seconds, so it won't be 60 seconds to a minute... Wait, damn, a minute passed.
If your graph is being misinterpreted nonmaliciously, you made a bad graph. If you show that Texas and California have the same COVID death and infection rates despite completely different mitigation measures, the graph showing such is simply showing such. The scientist drawing a DIFFERENT conclusion than what the graph clearly states, is simply ignoring the data. That's not "interpreting through a belief system", it's malicious ignorance.