Proof by absurdity
When top journals publish absurd data
One of Andrew's readers ridiculed a paper published in JAMA, one of the top peer-reviewed journals of medical science in the world, that reported some disarming statistics (link).
The authors claimed that 7% of American adults have been present at a mass shooting involving at least four victims. Further, they estimated that 2% of American adults have been injured at such a shooting.
Really?
There are roughly 200 million adults in the U.S. So they say with a straight face that 2% of 200 million = 4 million people have been injured during mass shootings involving 4 or more victims.
Last year, there were roughly 500 such shootings. If the average such event injured 100 people (follow along just for laughs, now), that's 50,000 injuries in a year. We'd have to accumulate 80 years of numbers to reach 4 million.
This type of thinking helps data analysts get rid of fringe hypotheses quickly so that they can focus on more promising ones. I don't have a better name for this style of argument. A proof by absurdity?
