Only use a statistic if you know it is correct

For Bean Head, my most reliable phone-a-friend.

Only use a statistic if you know it is correct. I've witnessed people splurting out a percentage or amount, and upon asking them if they're sure about the quoted figure, hearing the response, "well, I think so".

There is a temptation to cite statistics in order to support your argument. But to do so incorrectly; nay, falsely, only weakens your stance and credibility. In the same way that some people use the exclamation mark to compensate for their inability to write in a creative way, some folk take a stab at along-ago heard, urban-legend statistics in order to elevate their perceived level of knowledge on a subject.

Nothing wrong with that, of course; but if a dinner party descends into a big statistical mess, in which nothing anyone says can be trusted, then an inevitable silence will descend upon the room, as friends, relatives and strangers play a game of call-my-bluff mind-poker with each other.

Tip: The Guardian is the best website in terms of content and opinion, but if you want to know the score of a football game or order of play at The Open, check the BBC.

Although I don't envy fact-checkers, their profession is honourable and necessary. A fact isn't a fact if it's wrong - that's obvious. But facts are also subjective, given that we can't prove anything (although Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" is impressively close). And so if someone reads or hears a statistic, its nice for them to know that, because it has been researched and verified it is, in a word, probably true.