Powerful groups often try to prevent data collection on sensitive topics. The NRA's success in limiting gun data collection highlights their understanding that statistics are a powerful tool for shaping debate and policy, making the absence of data a strategic goal.

John Donohue argues the "More Guns, Less Crime" theory was flawed because it didn't control for the crack cocaine epidemic. States with laxer gun laws saw less crime increase not due to the laws, but because they weren't the urban centers hit hard by crack, creating a spurious correlation.

The authors’ original, controversial abortion-crime paper included predictions for the next two decades. When a follow-up paper showed these predictions were borne out by the data, the academic community, which had previously engaged in a "firestorm" of debate, mostly ignored the powerful new evidence.

The 'Matthew effect' entrenches established scientists who can stifle new ideas. Economist Pierre Azoulay's research confirms that publications and citations from a lab often increase after the lead scientist dies, as their departure allows new perspectives to flourish.

Both the hard left, which sees modern institutions as corrupt, and the traditional right, which laments the decline of past authorities, are ideologically primed to reject data showing societal progress. For both, positive trends can be seen as a form of heresy.

Simply stating that conventional wisdom is wrong is a weak "gotcha" tactic. A more robust approach involves investigating the ecosystem that created the belief, specifically the experts who established it, and identifying their incentives or biases, which often reveals why flawed wisdom persists.

The public appetite for surprising, "Freakonomics-style" insights creates a powerful incentive for researchers to generate headline-grabbing findings. This pressure can lead to data manipulation and shoddy science, contributing to the replication crisis in social sciences as researchers chase fame and book deals.

Contrary to popular belief, publication in a top academic journal doesn't guarantee a study is correct. The social sciences lack the precise experimental validation of hard sciences, allowing incorrect theories to have "long legs and survive" due to a lack of rigorous, focused scrutiny from peers.

Professor Asao Inouye's theory—that grading English promotes white supremacy—was presented not at a fringe event but as the keynote at his field's biggest conference. This shows how radical ideas can become centrally accepted dogma within academic fields, making dissent from peers seem heretical.