Campaign!

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Argumentum ex culo

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Fun:PIDOOMA)
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic

Argumentum ex culo ("argument from the asshole") is the act of arguing by way of non sequitur, ad hockery, or bullshit in a desperate attempt to shore up a blatantly untenable argument.

As a general rule, if something stinks about the argument, there's a good chance it's an argumentum ex culo.

Contents

[edit] Otherwise known as

Argumentum ex culo is a Latin translation of PIDOOMA, the acronym for Pulled It Directly Out Of My Ass.[1] This is a self-explanatory origin for woo and pseudoscience statistics, estimates, theories, and, fairly often, evidence, too. As the anus is the very bottom of the gut, many PIDOOMA's originate as "gut feelings". It is creationism from the fundament.

Proctolojustification: "The act of defending someone who speaks out of their ass."[2]

[edit] In statistics

See the main article on this topic: Statistics

A quoted statistic that is a neat multiple of 5 should generally be suspected to be of PIDOOMA provenance, because after all, "88.2% of statistics are made up".[3] Similarly, statistics or results quoted to odd precision are also suspect as they are an example of "spurious rigor". That is, the addition of significant figures or more decimal places are used to make the figure seem more accurate and reliable, when, in fact, such precision is rarely justifiable. An improvement of 82.56% is probably (with a confidence of either 95% or 92.56584%) no real improvement at all.

While useless to identify a single bogus statistic, large sets of numbers found in nature typically conform to Benford's Law,[4] which states that 30% of the time, the leading digit in each statistic should be "1", 17.6% of the time the leading digit should be "2", 12.5% of the time the leading digit should be "3", and so forth in conformance with the following equation:

P(d)=\log_{10}(d+1)-\log_{10}(d)=\log_{10} \left(1+\frac{1}{d}\right).

Made-up statistics, unlike naturally occurring statistics, tend to have an even distribution of first digits. Keep in mind this rule only applies to purely quantitative numbers, like "flow rate in gallons per second of the Nile river", and percentages, by virtue of their cap at 100% do not conform to this metric.

Conversely, the last digits tend to have a more even distribution as these represent relatively random noise inherent in any real-world sample. Therefore amongst large sets of numbers, an over-prevalence of any particular number (usually 7, for some reason) may suggest these numbers were typed up by a human rather than generated by a noisy and messy environment such as reality.

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Synonyms: colonic autoextraction methodology, toilet fishing.
  2. A comment on Samantha Bee's facebook page. Jimi Davies: "after seeing people trying to defend the giant oompah loomph I coined a new word. Proctolojustification - The act of defending someone who speaks out of their ass. You're welcome, english language."
  3. Reeves; Guinness (1997)
  4. Wolfram MathWorld - Benford's Law


Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools