I am not dismissing anything. I have looked at the pro publica article. Its partisan bullshit. The information you provided is not data and its bullshit. Like I said, talk to your statistician friends and present them with the pro-publica article and ask them if taking 37 incidents out of a database of 3000 incidents is an example of data dredging/p hacking or if that is more likely to be a good “study”. Ask them if it what pro-publica is a “study” when it provides no analysis and only provides numerical relationships between small series of data in a much larger dataset and just invites you to reach your own conclusions.
I get the feeling you won’t believe anyone that doesn’t drink your particular brand of kool aid. I don’t think you are capable of believing anything that is inconsistent with your belief, as long as someone is willing to provide you with a shred of hope that you may still be right. So find a statistician (or scientist) and ask them about P Hacking and data dredging and then give them the pro-publica article and ask if this is good science.
Contrary to what the mods may think I was barely aware of Dibble’s existence until they claimed we had some sort of rivalry, he kind of faded into the background noise of the liberal choir that can only survive in a liberal echo chamber like this one. I consider you to be the most dangerous poster on the board. You’re smart, patient, affable, and make compelling emotion based arguments, and you go unchallenged when wrong. You appear to be open minded but you are not. You are pleasant to a fault in a “bless his heart” sort of way. People want to believe you even when you present horseshit like that pro-publica article.
I am not posting to convince you. I am posting so people don’t think that you are presenting actual facts.