b]Bricker** did not even say that one claim was credible or not versus the other, he just said it was more credible. Which I think is exactly right, if Bricker’s asserion about close to zero incidence of white on black rape is true, then this mitigating factor, being the only one in evidence, does add, however slightly you wish, to the credibility. It does not make it credible, and it certainly doesn’t indicate it as being credible and the other case being not credible.
Yeh, I saw that too, but my gut feeling* is that it’s a rationalization of a misuse so common as to have elbowed its way into the dictionary, trampling over the earlier “homing” idiom. Much as “lay” has come to find acceptance by lexicographers (however gritted the teeth) in contexts where “lie” was formerly the only correct usage. Ditto for “comprise” shoving its way into the rightful place of “compose”.
Why, yes. Yes, I am a nitpicky little arsehole.
*Alert alert this is opnion, not being put forward as fact!
All other things being equal, I tend to place more weight on the posts from someone with a Join Date of 2001 and 6 posts to his name.
It’s kind of like when Silent Bob speaks.
So maybe you should just let it go. And, while you’re at it, stop beating a dead horse.
But not the above part, right? No doubt about that. 
I was confused by this definition–
Now this just makes me furious! Handwaving this kind of thing as “academic” as if it never makes a difference. The difference between 4d6 and 6d4 is tremendous. 4d6 will range from 4-24, 6d4 will range from 6-24. So your little first-level character who uses d6 as hit die has a CHANCE of surviving one shot from a breath weapon from a [very] young green dragon(assuming a failed save) if the damage is 4d6. Not so if it is 6d4.
Won’t somone think of the d6 hit die characters who fail their saves?!?
Enjoy,
Steven
Hey, no problem.
:: sweeps a bow ::
After you, Madame.
Whoa, forgive my ignorance of poster identity, but Bricker is a lawyer? Seems to me that explains everything. Dogged insistence on arguing ad infinitum a point with such an infinitesimally narrow edge as to have absolutely no relevance to the real world. This whole thing seems pointless, on both sides. But then, that’s what lawyers do . . .
Sadly, internet trolls (as opposed to D&D trolls) regenerate one die more than the damage done to them, and do so instantaneously.
PDNFTT
Tris
I agree this thread is not about stats but let’s state for the sake of the argument at hand that Bricker’s statistics on the prevalance of inter-racial rape are indeed true and the only knowledge of the case is the race of those involved. You would have to be a fool to discredit the only evidence you have in the case simply on the grounds that you don’t like what it points to.
Therein lies the crux of your problem comprehending this topic, not only do you have evidence to make that claim, that is the only evidence you have to make any claim. If the crime of rape happens more often between two people who are white as opposed to between a black woman and white man, then it is obvious that the white woman’s claim was more likely to happen. It does not by default insinuate that whatever the black woman claims happened didn’t occur.
Say for example two people claim to have gotten skin cancer:
Person 1 is an Albino who claims to have gotten skin cancer
Person 2 is not an Albino who claims to have gotten skin cancer
Note that all you know is one person is an Albino more prone to skin cancer, based on the evidence, and one isn’t. You don’t know their life habits, their family history, or how much they exposed themselves to the sun. Judging from the facts, we know that Albinos are more likely than the average person to become afflicted with skin cancer, so thereferore Person 1’s claim is more likely, and thus more credible. This does not somehow imply Person 2 does not have skin cancer and is a liar.
However like you said this thread is not about stats, it’s about debating. What you got wrong is that it isnt Bricker’s quality as a debater that is the issue, the issue is the debate you are having with yourself between facing facts objectively and jumping to knee-jerk conclusions when a hot topic button is presented.
Unless your first-level d6 HD character ALSO HAS A POSITIVE CON MODIFIER! Hah! Let’s go for 28 pages on the probability of THAT! 
All the time, baby.
In fact, let me tell you about how my character failed her last saving throw… Hey! Quit hitting me! I was just leaving!
To the OP:
Hey; leave me the fuck out of this. At no point did I accuse Bricker of implying that race was a causative factor in dishonesty with respect to rape allegations, nor do I think that it was ever his intention to do so. Don’t let your complete incomprehension of basic probability colour what were (as far as I am concerned) purely methodological objections on my part. I think his statistical inferences were highly unsound, but I absolutely reject any suggestion that he implied that being black causes one to be more likely to lie about rape allegations.
To Bricker:
I maintain that your statistical methods are up the spout, though (as I stated in the other thread) I am entirely sympathetic to your efforts to distinguish prior predictions from posterior observation (and am - academically speaking - dismayed by the utter incomprehension of this difference). Nonetheless, I think you’re way out in claiming that prevalence rates alone allow one to make any inference whatsoever regarding the reliability of rape reports. I will try and construct a more comprehensive demonstration of why this is the case tomorrow, but I’m really busy until next Monday, so will likely not get the chance. Sorry.
Bricker, please tell me if my statement below is a fair restatement of your opinion above:
“If the methodology underlying a statistical analysis of past events is very accurate, and that analysis shows a very high (or low) incidence of occurence of a particular element of those events; we are then justified in placing an additional degree of confidence in the reporting accuracy of a contemrary event if that element occurs or doesn’t in agreement with its probability in past events.”
You would have to be a fool to think that a person’s race would count as evidence. Period. It’s not a matter of discrediting anything. It’s a matter of not assuming something is a relevant indicator of veracity when you have no rational reason to do so.
No it is not. The reason why race is correlated with rape prevalence is because race is also correlated with the causative factors for rape, such as proximity and at-risk relationships. By itself, it tells you nothing about the likelihood of a specific allegation.
Janice, who is white, says she was raped by a white man.
Mary, who is black, says she was raped by white man.
You conclude that Janice’s claim is more credible because of what crime stats say about race. But what if Janice’s alleged attacker is a complete stranger, while Mary’s alleged attacker is a guy she just started dating? Race is associated with whom we form our intimate relationships with, and that’s why race is correlated with rape prevalence profiles. But it doesn’t dictate anything. So before you rush to the conclusion that Janice’s case is more credible, you need to get more facts.
What information do we have about Person 2 that would allow us to say that their claim is less plausible than Person 1’s? Sure albino’s get skin cancer a lot. But so do plenty of other people. For me to say that Person 1’s claim is more likely to occur than Person 2, I need to know a lot more than just who is an albino or not. I need to know their life habits, family history, etc. Just knowing that one is albino is meaningless, because if that albino never goes outside then that right there makes their claim hard to believe.
Since you seem rather sure that I’m wrong about this, answer me this:
CEO White McWhiterson, a white guy, is accused of fraud.
CEO Black McBlackerson, a black guy, is accused of fraud.
You have crime stats showing that white men are responsible for 97% of all fraud cases involving CEOs.
Which accusation is more credible?
Um, I trying to figure out where I said that you did.
I am very pleased that, apart from the OP, the general consensus of participating readers in this thread seem to have had little trouble accurately identifying my argument.
That being the case, I feel my own presence is simply a lightning rod for the OP, and I can only respond so many times to the same argument.
So, unless something truly dramatic happens in this thread that demands a response from me… I’m done here.
Bye, thread!
Responding is never requisite, you bongwater douche. Respond, or don’t, but don’t assume a thread is dead because you hope it is.
To the OP:
Hey; leave me the fuck out of this. At no point did I accuse Bricker of implying that race was a causative factor in dishonesty with respect to rape allegations, nor do I think that it was ever his intention to do so. Don’t let your complete incomprehension of basic probability colour what were (as far as I am concerned) purely methodological objections on my part. I think his statistical inferences were highly unsound, but I absolutely reject any suggestion that he implied that being black causes one to be more likely to lie about rape allegations. Each of your posts leads me to further lower my estimate of the prior probability that you will comprehend a given response, and were I a less rigorous applier of statistics, it would lower my faith in humanity in general. Fortunately, I maintain the fond hope that you are an outlier.
To Bricker:
I maintain that your statistical methods are up the spout, though (as I stated in the other thread) I am entirely sympathetic to your efforts to distinguish prior predictions from posterior observation (and am - academically speaking - dismayed by the utter incomprehension of this difference). Nonetheless, I think you’re way out in claiming that prevalence rates alone allow one to make any inference whatsoever regarding the reliability of rape reports (fundamentally, I believe that the assumption of “all other things being equal” is tantamount to begging the question in this instance, since some of the things being assumed to be “equal” are far from obviously so, and in fact involve assuming great inequity). I will try and construct a more comprehensive demonstration of why this is the case tomorrow, but I’m really busy until next Monday, so will likely not get the chance. Sorry.
Why would you discredit it if we’re talking about an individual case that’s totally independent of other cases?
I claim that a lime-green sports car on the turnpike crashed into me. Is my claim not credible since lime green sports cars represent 0.01% of the car population? Why would you assume I’m lying? Since it’s perfectly plausible that a lime-green car crashed into me, why prejudice yourself by assuming I must be lying?
Making a comparison of credibility (less credible, more credible) makes perfect sense if we’re comparing multiple cases that are somehow dependent on one another. But in the scenarios being laid out in linked threads, we aren’t comparing the likelihood of multiple cases. We are talking about the credibility of ONE claim. Not knowing anything about an accusation other than it’s plausible, the most prudent judgement would be to wait for evidence before assigning credibility. Picking out irrelevant factors like race to make a judgement is definitely not wise.
Picking out race in the way done in the LW thread is like saying, in the absence of evidence, Ken Lay was probably innocent. Why? Because the man wore red underwear, and the statistics show that most white-collar crime is committed by people wearing white underwear. The logic is faulty through-and-through (underwear color has not been casually linked to crime, red underwear has not been linked to honesty and morality, and statistics drawn from a population do not determine plausibility of a claim or credibility of an individual).
It’s extremely frustrating that people are still insisting it makes sense. Even in the “academic” sense.
Okay, my previous response wasn’t there when I came back to the timed-out page and re-previewed. Bah, I say. Bah and wotnot. If a friendly mod cares to splat my first post, it would be greatly appreciated, although I can see why it might be a bit late by now. Otherwise, the insight into my painstaking (yet rubbish) editing procedure will no doubt be valuable to anyone who wants to learn from my manifold mistakes.
“Um”, perhaps it was here:
…combined with the bit where you then went on to cite my arguments as backup for your position. I absolutely am not having my posts, which (as is painfully obvious from the other thread) are quite heavily at odds with your own, used as bolsters for a position which is not mine. Make your own crappy arguments, thank you.
Why would you assume a probability is independent of a given factor if you had statistics showing that it was dependent? If you have a dice that’s rolled a 5 three hundred times in a row, would you continue to insist that the three hundred and first roll is completely independent? I suspect not. I’m not saying that rape statistics show such a dependency, but I reject the idea that they are immune to probabilistic analysis in the manner that some here are proposing. I would be very surprised if ethnicity proved to be a factor in rape claim reliability, and (as my several posts will show) reject outright the idea that the mere rate of white-on-black rape gives any indication as to such reliability; but I absolutely dispute this whole “independent case” argument that’s being put forth.