--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
I don't think I suggested you were either defending or attacking the study, did I? > > 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. You didn't address the point previously, no. But it strikes me as the most important part of his rebuttal of the claim that the fact that a murder spike occurred completely invalidated the study results. > > 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. In the first place, I don't believe they *did* exclude the murder spike. But in the second place, the spike was so small in terms of the overall violent crime numbers, it wouldn't have affected the overall results to any substantial degree, would it? Maybe a fraction of a percentage, I'd guess, no? And in the third place, even if they did exclude it, it wouldn't be at all parallel to Barry's attempted analogy, for the reasons I specified. Apples and kiwi fruit.
