Fabrication

What are the ethical implications of utilising fabricated or distorted statistics in philosophical argumentation?

Well, I wish I could ask Michael Levin about this question to see what he thought of the issue. I can't imagine he would very much like it if people fabricated statistics against his arguments. Though there is of course the possibility that he simply glossed over the obviously incorrect statistic that one in four people with dark skin commit felonies. This is blatantly untrue and makes Levin look like a jerk, if anyone bothered to look up the statistics.

I think it is highly unethical to fabricate or distort statistics to support a philosophical point. The point, after you do that, is no longer philosophical because its hardly based on valid reasons. Though it's not always likely, people could very well end up taking any given statistic to be true, and in fact, people probably do that fairly often, so choosing the fabricate or distort a statistic could lead many people to a side of an argument that otherwise they would have never supported. In the worse can scenario someone could be seriously harmed or even killed based off of belief in some erroneous statistic. Even small scale, as Levin's argument is, it could cause slightly or possibly significant psychological trauma to the innocent people who are victims of racial profiling.