I know it’s old, but it’s a perfect example of why you have to check definitions when looking at politically charged studies.
“The agenda is, ‘let’s reduce injuries in children and youth and how can we do that?’”
How terrible.
By lying. Forgot that part.
How are people supposed to trust studies when stuff like this happens? It erodes trust when studies lie.
How are people supposed to trust studies when stuff like this happens?
By reading the study and not relying on someone’s interpretation of it.
The issue is relying on that shifts the bulk of the work to the reader. Most people don’t have the time (or let’s be honest, the knowledge and experience) to properly go back through the sources and look at the raw data and conclusions to make your own assessments.
As I wrote my dissertation, one fascinating thing was when you followed citations back to their source. Often they did not claim what was said. I am not talking about different interpretations, I am talking about the citation that didn’t even remotely resemble what was cited. I would say it was well over 30% of the citations.
As such not only reading the study but following the cites back as well.
Thats the problem, to properly understand studies, you have to have a solid background in that field. You cant expect the average person to have knowledge in any particular subject.
Seems like it was an oversight, not an intentional lie. If somebody calls an airsoft rifle a firearm, that’s colloquially appropriate, even if not legally correct.
Language is muddy. That’s life.
Who on earth calls an airsoft gun a firearm? I can understand gun, but firearm is a formal term. Its not colloquially correct, and even if it was, a study should know the difference.
The definition of firearm is not nearly muddy enough to excuse that.
Nobody does. the term firearm is defined by law in most places. They did not use the legal definition.
Paintball is another weird one. You will always have some injury playing painball. I use to come home bruised from it.