PIDOOMA

{{logicnav}}
{{cquote|'''Raiden:''' That's a nice argument, Senator. Why don't you back it up with a source?<br />
'''Senator Armstrong:''' My source is that ''I made it the fuck up''!|||''An Incorrect Summary of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance''<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmTsa3rFU0 An Incorrect Summary of Metal Gear Rising | Part 2 | Sons of Obesity] Max0r on [[YouTube]], 2022.</ref>}}
'''PIDOOMA''' (the acronym for '''P'''ulled '''I'''t '''D'''irectly '''O'''ut '''O'''f '''M'''y '''A'''ss, or '''''argumentum ex culo''''';<ref group=note>Or '''''ex ano''''' if you want to be classy.</ref> literally "argument from the asshole") is the act of arguing by way of 
[[QAnon|flinging everything at the wall and seeing what sticks]]
 ''[[ad hoc|ad hoc]]'' [[bullshit]] in a desperate attempt to shore up an untenable [[argument]], with the use of [[Deceit|blatant, usually intentional lies]].

As a general rule, if something stinks about the argument, there's a good chance it's an ''argumentum ex culo''.

==Otherwise known as==
Synonyms: ''colonic autoextraction methodology'', ''toilet fishing'', ''proctolojustification''.<ref group=note>A comment on [https://www.facebook.com/fullfrontalsamb/photos/a.1771924126368559.1073741828.1765033567057615/1833668423527462/?type=3&comment_id=1833673123526992&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D Samantha Bee's facebook page.] Jimi Davies: "after seeing people trying to defend the giant oompah loompah I coined a new word. Proctolojustification — The act of defending someone who speaks out of their ass. You're welcome, English language."</ref> This is a self-explanatory origin for [[woo]] and [[pseudoscience]] [[statistic]]s, estimates, "theories", and, fairly often, evidence, too. As the [[anus]] is the very bottom of the gut, many PIDOOMAs originate as "gut feelings." It is [[creationism]] from the {{#choose:[[Fundamentalism|fundament]]|[[Anus|fundament]]}}.

==In statistics==
{{main|Statistics}}
A quoted statistic that is a neat multiple of 5 should generally be suspected to be of PIDOOMA provenance, because after all, "88.2% of statistics are made up."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/859476.stm Counting on the figures] (31 July, 2000, 18:05 GMT 19:05) ''BBC''. "Comedian Vic Reeves once said 88.2% of statistics were made up on the spot."</ref> Similarly, statistics or results quoted to odd precision are also suspect as they are an example of "[[spurious rigor]]." That is, the addition of significant figures or more decimal places are used to make the figure seem more accurate and reliable, when, in fact, such precision is rarely justifiable. An improvement of 82.56% is probably (with a confidence of either 95% or 92.56584%) no real improvement at all.

===Benford's Law===
[[File:Benfords law illustrated by world's countries population.png|thumb|The chart depicts the percentage of countries having the corresponding digit as first digit of their population (red bars). For example, 64 countries of 237 (=27%) have 1 as leading digit of the population. Black points indicate what is predicted by {{wpl|Benford's Law||.}}]]
While useless to identify a single bogus statistic, large sets of [[numbers]] found in nature typically conform to {{wpl|Benford's Law||,}}<ref>[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BenfordsLaw.html Wolfram MathWorld - Benford's Law]</ref> which states that 30% of the time, the leading digit in each statistic should be ''1'', 17.6% of the time the leading digit should be ''2'', 12.5% of the time the leading digit should be ''3'', and so forth in conformance with the following equation:

<math>P(d)=\log_{10}(d+1)-\log_{10}(d)=\log_{10} \left(1+\frac{1}{d}\right).</math>

Made-up statistics, unlike naturally-occurring statistics, tend to have an even distribution of first digits. Keep in mind this rule only applies to purely quantitative numbers with no upper bound, like "flow rate in gallons per second of the Nile river," and that percentages, by virtue of their cap at 100%, do not conform to this metric.

Conversely, the last digits tend to have a more even distribution as these represent relatively random noise inherent in any real-world sample. Therefore, among large sets of numbers, an over-prevalence of any particular number (usually 7, for some reason) may suggest these numbers were typed up by a human rather than generated by a noisy and messy environment such as [[reality]].

==Examples==
Fans of [[prophecies]] are known for attributing new predictions, that they pulled out of thin air, to their favourite "prophet" after their original prediction failed to come true. In a fraudulent attempt to maintain their accuracy, the new predictions will be [[Shoehorning|consistent with events that actually took place]]. This applies to people such as [[Nostradamus]], [[Edgar Cayce]], and [[Baba Vanga]]. Nostradamus was attributed a prophecy of [[9/11]]; however, the prophecy was actually only written several years before 9/11, as an example of a prophecy so vague that it can seem to predict anything.<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nostradamus-911-prediction/ Did Nostradamus Predict the 9/11 Attacks?]</ref>

[[Andrew Schlafly]] also is a common user of PIDOOMAs, such as his statement that [[Conservapedia:Schlafly Statistics#Wikipedia Statistics|"Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public."]], which he just made up to make Wikipedia look bad.<ref>[https://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Chewbacca Defense]]
*[[The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]]
*[[Gish Gallop]]
*[[Just asking questions]]
*[[Overprecision]]
*[[Quote mining]], otherwise known as PIOOSEA or '''P'''ull '''I'''t '''O'''ut '''O'''f '''S'''omeone '''E'''lse's '''A'''ss
*[[Schlafly Statistics]]
{{otherlang
|pt=TDK}}

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Ad hoc]]
[[Category:Assholes]]
[[Category:Eponymous laws]]
[[Category:Pseudo-Latin phrases]]
[[Category:Shit articles]]

Categories: Ad hoc, Assholes, Eponymous laws, Pseudo-Latin phrases, Shit articles