--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Isn't discounting a large surge in the murder rate during > > the period that crime was being measured > > It was not "a large surge in the murder rate during > the period that crime was being measured." It was a > spike occurring during a 36-hour segment of that > period (as I said). The immediately following week, > while the course was still going on, there were far > *fewer* murders than normal, so the average number of > murders per week over the duration of the course > remained the same as usual. > > > a lot like saying: > > > > "The IA course has successfully created a lasting state of > > peace, worldwide. We have not counted Iraq, Afghanistan, > > Darfur, Chad, Sudan, Western Sahara, Somalia, Nigeria, and > > Chechnya because they are anomalies." > > Even overlooking the fact that certain kinds of > anomalies are, indeed, statistically insignificant > (as the TM researcher new morning cited who was > defending the study pointed out,
I was not defending, nor attacking the study as a whole. I was raising some concerns in the rubuttal points raised by Rainforth. > this was such > a case, given the small total number of murders > in proportion to the *much* larger total number > of violent crimes whose rate was being studied), I am not sure I made this point in my prior posts, but did just now in a new post. > no, the spike in the murder rate isn't at all like > what you say. If the gang-shooting was excluded from the study, that does look like excluding data that contradicts ones premises. Not a good thing. As I have said, I dislike -- and dispute the reasonablness of -- the study's pooling all three crimes, for the precise reason that it does muddle the effects of ME on murder (and rape). > The D.C. study did not claim to have successfully > eliminated violent crime in D.C. on a permanent > basis; it claimed to have been responsible for a > temporary overall decline Quite a small one, 10-15% or so. It raises questions, how big must ME be to cause substantial reductions in crime. >in the total number of > incidents of violent crime compared to what would > have been expected for that period if the course > had not taken place, and it *did* count the spike > in the number of murders per week. The study may have, or may not have. Its ambiguous to me. But as the study was done, its irrelevant -- per pooling.
