--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html#note1 <snip> > > > And later, he dismisses a doubling of the murder rate during the > > > course from 10/mo to 20/, as an "outlier". Thats convenient.
Actually that would be 10 and 20 per week, not per month. > > 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. Actually, statistically speaking, anomalous events are just that, anomalous, and may *not* be relevant when one is considering longer-term trends. This is from the article new morning cites: Park asserts that levels of violence actually increased to record levels. He confuses homicides which accounted for only 3% of violent crime in Washington during 1993 with violent crimes in general. Park asserts that the murder rate soared during the experiment, and claims that "participants in the project seemed serenely unaware of the mounting carnage around them." It is true the murder rate did not drop during the course as we acknowledged in the initial research report and in the published study but the facts were very different. For six weeks ending the month before the experiment, from mid-March through April, homicides in Washington averaged ten per week. Beginning one week after the course and for twelve weeks thereafter, homicides also averaged ten per week. During the eight weeks of the experiment, in June and July, the average was again ten per week except for one horrific 36-hour period in which ten people died. Apart from this brief episode, which was a statistical outlier, the level of homicides during June and July of 1993 was not significantly higher than the remainder of the year. According to his article, Park apparently took his lead on the murder issue from a Washington Post reporter who had been impressed that the one 36-hour period had led to a sudden doubling of the murder rate that week. The reporter, and Park, did not notice that the very next week the murder rate dropped from its common rate of ten by more than twice that is, the totals went up to 20 one week and down to 4 the next. This is precisely the type of sporadic fluctuation one must account for when total numbers are small. The average incidence of murder in Washington was little more than one per day, and with numbers as low as this, as Park and all scientists know, random fluctuations can appear extremely high when listed as percentages. As I said in an earlier post, I'd sure like new morning to elucidate what he thinks is wrong with this explanation of why the fact that the murder rate jumped during one 36- hour period should not be considered significant with regard to the overall study results.
