I think people wouldn’t say that if you ask them, but it’s for sure the case that people will be more likely to believe something is scientific and true if you:
show a list of numbers, then claim the data shows xyz thing you’re claiming, regardless of whether it actually shows that or you’re actually making a lot of assumptions
show a chart, even if the axis aren’t marked clear, or are scaled in a way to make it look more impressive
can point at 1 study and say they detected a significant difference, even though statistical significance (this observed effect is less than 5% likely to be caused by pure coincidence) is not the same thing as the usual understanding of significance (this effect is large/important), and even though 1 study on its own is statistically likely to be biased or not even a little bit replicable.
show your math, even if it’s bad math or doesn’t represent what you say it does, because most people will assume that someone who shows their math knows what they’re doing.
Anyway I think this sort of thing is why companies will claim something like “9 out of 10 doctors recommend x” or “people who used our product had a 300% greater chance of getting into college” or “our breakfast cereal is up to 70% healthier than competing brands” or whatever, instead of like “most doctors recommend” or “people who use our product are much more likely to get into college” or “our cereal is much healthier than competing brands”.
Even though the former claims are typically based on absolute nonsense and misleading interpretations of company-funded studies, and aren’t actually any more specific or reliable than the latter, and sometimes don’t even make sense - 70% healthier? How do you measure health as a percentage? - they look more specific and scientific/authoritative to people just by having numbers in them.
I think people wouldn’t say that if you ask them, but it’s for sure the case that people will be more likely to believe something is scientific and true if you:
show a list of numbers, then claim the data shows xyz thing you’re claiming, regardless of whether it actually shows that or you’re actually making a lot of assumptions
show a chart, even if the axis aren’t marked clear, or are scaled in a way to make it look more impressive
can point at 1 study and say they detected a significant difference, even though statistical significance (this observed effect is less than 5% likely to be caused by pure coincidence) is not the same thing as the usual understanding of significance (this effect is large/important), and even though 1 study on its own is statistically likely to be biased or not even a little bit replicable.
show your math, even if it’s bad math or doesn’t represent what you say it does, because most people will assume that someone who shows their math knows what they’re doing.
Anyway I think this sort of thing is why companies will claim something like “9 out of 10 doctors recommend x” or “people who used our product had a 300% greater chance of getting into college” or “our breakfast cereal is up to 70% healthier than competing brands” or whatever, instead of like “most doctors recommend” or “people who use our product are much more likely to get into college” or “our cereal is much healthier than competing brands”.
Even though the former claims are typically based on absolute nonsense and misleading interpretations of company-funded studies, and aren’t actually any more specific or reliable than the latter, and sometimes don’t even make sense - 70% healthier? How do you measure health as a percentage? - they look more specific and scientific/authoritative to people just by having numbers in them.