Would you kindly expand on this? I note that I have heard Bret and Heather say that they read scientific papers that are drenched in math only to discover too often that the authors dont understand math....they claim this is one of the reasons that science has gone bad.
I already have, multiple times here. But, I'll do it again since you discuss things on a much better level here, and because you may not have seen it before.
Statistical math is a branch of mathematics that summarizes data. The data must be published. It must be raw data free of bias and the method of its collection must be shown to be free from bias. No cooked data is allowed.
Statistical math makes use of random numbers (a type randN number for data selection, and a paired randR number for normalization). Since it is only a summary tool and it makes use of random numbers, it doesn't have the ability to predict, normally inherent in mathematics. It can only summarize past or present data. It cannot predict data.
Part of the summary process is to declare a variance possible in the data, and to justify that declaration value. This is not the data itself, only the possible variance the data might take. From this, a margin of error value is calculated (that +- bit in the summary). The summary (the normalized data average and the margin of error value) is only good for that data. It cannot predict any future summaries or any future data.
A poll asks questions that are often not published, to people that are not selected in an unbiased manner, and the resulting data is not published. Performing an analysis on such data is completely pointless. Further, pollsters do not declare the variance or justify it. They simply publish some random number as the 'margin of error' if they publish it at all.
There are three types of random numbers: randR, or the same type that you see on a single die (a paired randR is like two or more dice, producing the familiar bell curve). randN, or the same type as you see in a deck of cards. Once a card is picked, you cannot pick it again until some reset event (like a shuffle) which cancels out all picks. In other words, it's randR with a memory. A randN can be picked once and only once, not 1.3 times, not 2.5 times, just once, or not at all. Cooking data is an attempt to pick something like 1.3 times, inserting a random number into the data.
The third type of random number is of type randU. This is the so-called pseudo random number. It comes out of someone's head, or out of an algorithm from someone's head. In other words, it's a made up number. Whenever you see someone use the words 'no one', or 'everyone', or 'most people', or 'experts say', that's a randU.
Using random numbers as data is a math error and a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy. Statistical summaries of hidden data is just a summary of random numbers, which itself is just a random number of type randU. Crappy random number generators in computers produce randU numbers. Random number mathematics is another branch of mathematics, but does not exist in the Real Domain, the type of mathematics people learn in grade school and most of college. Random numbers are used in statistical math and in probability math. Both branches of mathematics lose the power of prediction as a result.
The actual analysis itself is pretty simple to perform, but you MUST start with unbiased, published data to begin with, and you MUST have a variance declared and justified.
A lot of people like to claim 'trends' by misusing statistical mathematics. The government is no exception! These people have agendas. They are trying to sway opinion, not measure it. They are doing it with math errors and by using random numbers (of type randU) as data. You will find they then turn to 'expert worship' when challenged. After that, they usually just start to call you names.
The Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of Gun Control, the Church of Covid, and the Church of Fear all deny mathematics, deny science, deny history, and deny logic. They also denounce other religions, since each of these are fundamentalist style religions. They all stem from the Church of Karl Marx. They are all about implementing fascism in the United States and elsewhere.
Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics. Science is an open functional system. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Open functional systems do not have the power of prediction, but closed functional system do. It comes along with the formal proof. The importation of random numbers into a branch of mathematics though, removes this power of prediction normally inherent in other branches of mathematics. Example: 25=3x+b. You can predict what 'x' is easily for any value of 'b'. Theories of science are often transcribed into mathematics to give them this ability to predict. The resulting equation is known as a 'law' of science.
Religion is a thing defined by philosophy, just as science is. The simplest and best description of a religion is simply this: All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith', or the argument of faith. That itself is not a fallacy (an error in logic). Circular arguments have no True or False possible. They simply exist, and there is nothing wrong with that. Every theory, even scientific ones, begin as a circular argument.
There are people that like to try to prove a circular argument True or False. They are attempting a proof on something that is not possible. This is the circular argument fallacy. It is what a fundamentalist does. Hence, the religions I have mentioned above are fundamentalist style religions. They are each based on faith, and their members in each try to prove their religion True.
The funny thing about religions is that you don't even need to define what it is you worship. In the Church of Global Warming, for example, the phrase 'global warming' and 'climate change' has never been defined. All attempts to define them only define them with themselves. Since it's not possible to define a word with itself, this results in a circular definition, in and of itself. Yes, it is the basis of this religion.
Another form of this kind of undefinable worship takes place in some Christian sects, which cannot even define the characteristics of God. The sort of treat God as some kind of amorphous, shapeless, and unspecifiable thing; but all powerful somehow.
You asked about statistical math. I went further in answering you because there are terms here that need to be explained and clarified as well. Hopefully this answers your question, and may help you to ask more specific questions about anything I was unclear on.
Even you know deep down he is a pathological liar......
but that is hardly the only reason to have pause debating a monster, now is it......... 
