--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB > > <no_reply@> 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. > > The real problem with the study is the design itself. > If it had a better design than a simple pre-post > (which makes no sense for research of this sort) non > of these question would be discussed
Where is such a thing discussed? The research took several years to complete because they wanted years of post-test-period data, IIRC.
