--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I DO think the gang shooting should be considered significant. That > > was my point. My initial take that the gang shooting was excluded was > > based on the fact that it was termed an outlier -- often excluded in > > my experience from datasets as part of the data validation process. > > And the comment, "this is precisely the type of sporadic fluctuation > > one must account for when total numbers are small." Exlusion is a > > major way of "accounted for" such outliers. > > > It was NOT excluded from the data.
If you know that from the study it self, please clarify. from the rebuttal, it is ambiguous, IMO. >The weekly AVERAGE was the weekly average with no > data excluded. The SIGNIFICANCE of the outlier was dismissed because it was only one > data point amongst many and wasn't repeated and in fact was reversed the next week (20 > one week and 4 the next). Which supports my view of highly fluctuating, high variance data, for which control variables were not well "explaining". And that is a more difficult platform from which to establish the effect of a new variable. > > > > At least three things trouble me about the explanation. First, my take > > was that the outlier was excluded from the analysis. > > Nope. > > Thats what is > > often is done with outliers -- such as some huge spike in data from > > equipment glitch -- having nothing to do with the study variables. > But not in this case. nowhere does the report say the 20-murder week was excluded. The rebuttal or the actual study? To me, the rebuttal implies it was excluded. At best its ambiguous. Unless the study explicityly shows that gangland shooting included, I say its still ambiguous. All this would be easily addressed if MUM would simple post all data and workpapers on a ME site. > > Thats the first analysis step in any study -- validation of the data. > > In re-reading the paragraphs, its ambiguous as to whether the outlier > > was actually excluded from the analysis. If it was excluded, (which > > was my take upon writing the original post, I do not feel that there > > was sufficient explanation as to why the gang-shooting was so > > extraoridnary out of the ordinary that it should not be included. > > > > Second, a key premise of the rebuttal was that temperature "nailed" > > variations in crime. It was said to be a very tight fit to the sesonal > > crime data. This is key in distinguishing ME from some other factors > > in crime reduction. Yet, with a deeper look, there is still huge > > variations in crime, even after crime has been controlled by > > temperature (and other factors). Thus, it points towards other > > possible major factors which have not been controlled for in the core > > crime model (without ME). This raises serious questions to whether it > > was ME or other uncontrolled for factors that were driving the > > changes. And/or there simply is a lot of "static", unexplained or > > random variations in the crime rate. In either case, its a difficult > > "base case" from which to clearly isolate an ME during the period of > > its intervention. > > The guys who did the study are available for talking to via their email and telephone > numbers. I've spoken to various TM resarchers directly over the years. Why haven't you > bothered, rather than posturing on FFL? I am not posturing. I read the rebuttal yesterday, with quite an open mind, expecting to hear great things from Rainforth, and was surprised at the weaknessses, IMO, that I found. I posted them i) for general interst and discussion, ii) clarification, iii) to articulate a thought I can come back to. In the past, I have forwarded some things to Hagelin and DOJ with no response. I did today get a nice letter from Mario O. in response to a copy of my recent blog post that I emailed him. Perhaps I will explore him as a conduit for ME study clarifications. Which is all I have been seeking with my questions. I am glad you have had good response from researchers. My impression is that it was sort of a "dead file" situation. > > Third, the rebuttal reinforces the fact that murder, rape and > > assualts, were summed. These are qualitatively different acts. At a > > minimum, separate analysis of each type of crime should have been > > analyzed. If only one or two types of violent crime went dowm and the > > other(s), did not, it raises quesions as to why, and IMO, would place > > doubt on ME. By averaging, with assaults being by far the highest > > category, the study becomes essentially a study on assaults. Effects > > on murders and to a lesser degree, rapes, are submerged. > True, but the study points out that these are the most violent, and possibly the least > affected, by the ME, at least in the short term. But why should that be the case. That is, if murders and rape did not go down, they should specifically address that in the research -- in instead of smothering/pooling it -- and in refining the "theory".
