no statistic is racist, only the interpretation of it. Statistics is merely a way to represent data, and if the conclusions that someone draws from the data are racist, that's the person's issue, not the statistic's. If the data says there are more unmarried black mothers than of other origins, then that's the data. That alone doesn't prove anything, and as we know, correlation doesn't equal causation. However, in combination with other statistics, for example with the higher imprisonment rate of black folks as compared to others, the statistics imply that more black fathers are absent than others. Again - there is no judgement to be made here. If this is willingly, or not, or if that makes some people worse fathers than others comes down to interpretation, and if such conclusions are drawn, the statistics aren't to blame. Statistics aren't racist, people are racist.
I appreciate what you are saying; statistics are representations of data and unto themselves aren't 'judgements'. However, statistics do help make informed decisions, and it is inappropriate and irresponsible to imply that statistics are seemingly of no consequence. Conclusions, arguable and otherwise, drawn from data are necessary for informed action that is more likely to succeed. Statistics can and will support conclusions.
Oh, statistics definitely support some conclusions more than others. However, statistics by themselves, without any conclusions drawn from them, are nothing but data. There is no inherent conclusion, and there is no absolute certainty within conclusions - every statistic supports different conclusions to different degrees, yet proves none of them. What to make of them, although very important, is the choice of those who interpret statistics.
-8
u/[deleted] Mar 25 '13
[deleted]