--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html#note1 > > > > Someone brought up the name Maxwell Rainforth so I pulled up this > > article. Some interesting points. > > > > However, look at the graphs. In the link. See how many flaws you > > can find in his argument? > > > > Among some -- reaching conclusions based on: > > > > Comparing a five year graph with a one year graph. > > > > The five year graph is averaged. look at HRA scale. Much lower > > than 1993 scale, as would be expected -- crime growing over > > time. But the averaging cancels out variations in each year. > > Without comparing the individual 1988-1992 annual graphs, with > > their inherent fluctuations, to the 1993 graph, his argument > > is baseless. The fact that he does not do that annual to annual > > comparision makes me assume he is hiding "the obvious" -- > > annual variations will be much greater than a five year > > averaged one and disprove his point. > > > > And of course, eye-balling, as he is asking us to do, is always > > good to confirm reasonability of statistical findings. But it > > is not in iteslf a statistical conclusion. He manually "centered" > > temperature on top of crimes. Lots of lattitude in that to make > > it look "good". Thats why statistical regression is used to find > > the "best" fit, not an eyeballed fit. > > > > And look at march, may and oct of 93. These months also have > > crime to temperature variations, although not as big as the DC > > project. What explains those variations. Unaccounted factors. > > As may well explain the DC variation. > > > > And later, he dismisses a doubling of the murder rate during the > > course from 10/mo to 20/, as an "outlier". Thats convenient. > > It was an outlier within the course itself. It was a one-week > aberration due to a gang fight that saw 10 deaths in one > incident, IIRC.
Yeah, new...it's perfectly legitimate to "not count" an anomalous event like *that*! What are you *thinking*? If you bitch about something as miniscule as disregarding data because it doesn't fit the all-important expectations, why you could set a precedent. And that precedent could pose problems when it comes time to splice in several extra frames of someone at mid-hop to show the expected result of "hovering." And we all *know* how bad that would be for the fate of the world! People would think that hopping was all that was going on and not flock to these all-important courses. What are you *thinking*? You must be one of those "anti-TMers" we hear so much about here. :-) More seriously, I think new has made the point that one can "interpret" "science" to show anything one wants. That's one reason I've never been impressed by the "TM science." It is "belief-driven" as opposed to truth-driven. There is no desire to show what really happens, only what is *expected* to happen.
