Not at all.
I’m simply saying that anyone can fudge the numbers and claim to have “data” to support their argument.
> Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes.
It offers an easily distortable “perspective”, and the same dataset is often misrepresented and twisted for convenience.
It’s a recurring theme, especially in leftist politics. Using “data” to spin a narrative and tell people the sky is pink when they can clearly see it’s blue.
This is why reproduction & peer review of methodology are such important steps of the scientific method.
You're not supposed to take a single person's word on what data is.
This is also why certain fields like psychology have something of a credibility crisis, because so many "discoveries" have not been able to be reproduced.
I'm curious though: Can you actually recall specific events of a "leftist" using a false data set or are you just engaging in general slander against your political opponents?
It's true that data must be judged for relevance & validity, but to just discard it in preference of your opinion is really egotistical.
Also, statistical data doesn't offer solutions; it only presents a broader perspective than one's collection of anecdotes.
So your example of Seattle choosing what you consider to be the wrong solution is not a very persuasive argument against collecting & using data itself.