Are statistics (supposed facts) debatable?

In sociology earlier, we were discussing teen suicide and statistics involved.

My teacher had said "Most teens are inclined to commit suicide based on media".

"Eskimos in Alaska that were too old to move on with their tribe would kill themselves as a pride thing."

"People that live in certain parts of the united states that are desolate with farmland, etc. are more inclined to commit suicide because there's nothing there."

"People that have no other way to make a living than running a family business feel they have no way out and then are mostly going to choose suicide"

Basically she gave us these statistics supposedly proving these as facts.

When I challenged the fact that this is a study of sociology and NOTHING IS FACTUAL as well as saying statistics mean hardly anything. These statistics could be based on 10 people for all we know.

My whole point was how you can't generalize and say "most people do this because.." then use "statistics" to back it up.

I disagreed by saying people that grow up on farms are no more inclined to commit suicide than people in metropolitan areas like New Jersey and NYC.

Just being human alone allows you to adapt and if you're brought up on a farm, knowing you have to farm for the rest of your life, it doesn't necessarily mean you're any less happy than someone who works a stressful job in Manhattan.

She responds with "THESE ARE FACTS"

How is anything in sociology factual when it's based on theories?

I'm sorry if this is sort of a mish mosh of information. I'm sort of expressing a few different points, getting my ideas together, and venting a bit. Do you believe statistics are debatable, facts, or false?

 

Yes, statistics are debatable because their accuracy can be questioned (with reason), or they can be interpreted in different ways. Your sociology teacher is probably right on all counts though.

 

Right in what sense? Saying that statistics are FACTS?

How are they facts if there's a grey area of could be and would be?

 

Yes they are debatable because statistics are always changing and are not always accurate.

 

Suicide rates are easily trackable. If farmland has a higher suicide rate, it doesn't necessarily mean that all people living on farms will commit suicide for the same reason, it just means that an individual living there is more likely to commit suicide.

 

"The average smoker is more likely to develop lung cancer than the average non-smoker."

If you just look at the statistical evidence for this, you can say that it isn't a fact because there is always uncertainty. The uncertainty is vanishingly small though, so you might as well call it a fact; smoking is a cause of cancer.

I don't think your teacher actually said "statistics are facts", unless she was referring to just the ones she used for backing up her statements. All of those seem causally linked, I'm sure you could prove their accuracy if you went looking for statistical evidence online

 

... Wrong.... Emile Durkheim theorized that suicide was a result of feelings of isolation and predicted that certain groups would have higher suicide rates (which they did). Teens have higher suicide rates than adults, however the media does not have a direct link to suicide that has been "proven".

Not sure, however this seems unlikely.

Actually if anything the opposite is true as rural communities tend to be more tightly knit then urban ones.

Again most likely the opposite is true.

.. Depends what she means by "fact"... In sociology there is ALWAYS an exception to the rule.

Not only do I not think her statements are absolute fact, I don't think they are even on the right side of the fence.

If you want some information to counter your teachers arguments I recommended Emile Durkheim..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim#Suicide
http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o26f99.htm

In terms of the original question, yes statistics are facts.

HOWEVER there is often a misinterpretation here made by the general population.

Now lets say I randomly select 500 first-year students at the University of Michigan to participate in a survey and the results show that 60% of those students admit to drinking every weekend. Now if I run the results through statistical analysis and they show the results to be statistically significant (AKA they didn't arise from chance), and the survey has repeatability (you can keep conducting it and get the same result) then I have gathered a fact. Some people would extrapolate to say that 60% of first-year students drink every weekend however this simply is not what this statistic shows. This statistic would show that 60% of first-year students attending the university of Michigan during the year(s) of the survey(s) drink every weekend.

 

Here you just made an argument for the third point, which you later disagreed with

That point doesn't seem to refer rural areas in general, only remote rural areas. Generally suicide rates are higher in rural areas anyway, due to untreated mental illnesses, farm crises and loss of ways of life etc.

 

Statistics - Fact's

 

Statistics can only be factual when the polling is factual. Random selection doesn't work. It has to be thought out according to proportion. But yes, if you get the right polling sample and the questions are unbias, then the statistics are factual.

 

Even facts can be thought of as only theory. It's a fact that I am a living human(how else would I be writing this?). Yet it's possible right now for anything to happen to me. I could be sucked into a black hole that suddenly spawned in the middle of my house. I could walk through a wall one day. The chances are there for every possible outcome. We disregard them because they(in theory) well never happen.

Just a little note, if you want to walk through walls go and push on a section of wall for nearly an eternity before you have some remotely reasonable chance of passing through it. On the quantum level your chances of anything are much higher.

 

90% of statistics are bull shit.
90% of bull shit is statistics.

 

How can you support that?

 

Point Proven.