3 ms·

> Firstly, you're critiquing a study based on a journalist's write-up about it. I'm critiquing a political abuse of a bogus study and also the bogus study itse

> Firstly, you're critiquing a study based on a journalist's write-up about it. I'm critiquing a political abuse of a bogus study and also the bogus study itself, based on the study's language and based on the political website referenced by the journalist's write-up, by actually reading them. You can see them too at http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/ http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/ and http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/static/files/supplementary-materials.pdf http://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/static/files/supplementary-material... > This is merely a pedantic argument that things are not truly knowable. Bullshit. I'm telling you that correlation doesn't imply causation and rather than saying "oh yeah, I heard that once somewhere, it was probably important" your response is "but physics jargon". They are measuring one thing and making, and these next words are key, an unreasonable leap onto something very different. In your boson world nobody ever doesn't report something that happened. In the real world that is very clearly false. Even a mediocre scientist accounts for blindingly obvious confounding factors. A better scientist accounts for things that don't even seem like they could possibly be confounding factors just because they are differences. Neither of those appear to have happened here. They assume that reporting rates are predictable for different circumstances just by guessing, which is not a reliable assumption. And on top of all of that, this report is likely going to be used as a giant war banner in the police union's fight to reduce the use of body cameras. And it just slides right over the fact that cameras actually do see police committing crimes and abuses for which they then don't get significantly punished and which would never have been uncovered otherwise. It arbitrarily privileges "reported uses of force" as the target of attention rather than "witnessed crimes and other violations". Why? The report isn't titled "Evaluating the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Uses of Force: A Randomized Controlled Trial". It's called "Evaluating the Effects of Police Body-Worn Cameras: A Randomized Controlled Trial" full stop. And yet they are clearly ignoring huge categories of observed malfeasance in order to tell a particular dismissive story.

dpark 9y ago
> I'm critiquing a political abuse of a bogus study and also the bogus study itself... It's disappointing but not surprising that you accuse them of "political abuse". Your own criticism seems clearly political because you start with the premise that it's literally impossible that they are correct. I actually agree with you that the results here feel suspect because they run so counter to my expectations, but I find it sad that this is how you put forward your agenda. > Bullshit. I'm telling you that correlation doesn't imply causation and rather than saying "oh yeah, I heard that once somewhere, it was probably important" your response is "but physics jargon". "Correlation is not causation" is a great response to erroneous conclusions drawn from studies constructed to establish correlation. It's a really poor response to a study designed to establish causation. If you believe that it is in general impossible to establish causation, then you are indeed just making an epistemological argument. If you have a problem with the construction of the study and believe it doesn't establish causation, because of X, Y, and Z, then provide that criticism. Don't assert that it's wrong because measurement is impossible. Even if we accept that claim as true, it's still a useless criticism because it means the best we can do is our indirect measurements and we are left with no option except to optimize for those. > They are measuring one thing and making, and these next words are key, an unreasonable leap onto something very different. It's not an unreasonable leap. A priori, many people would agree that a reduction in police use of force would result in a reduction of reports of use of force by both police and civilians. Previous studies indicated the same a posteriori. Clearly many people find the leap very reasonable. I believe the only reason you find it unreasonable is that you don't like the conclusion it leads to in this study. > In your boson world nobody ever doesn't report something that happened. In the real world that is very clearly false. Not sure what you're talking about. Erroneous measurements happen all the time in the scientific world. It was really hard for scientists to prove the existence of the Higgs boson because it's so hard to even detect. > They assume that reporting rates are predictable for different circumstances just by guessing, which is not a reliable assumption. Where does this claim come from? Did I miss something where the authors claimed that reporting would definitely be 100% consistent? And where does the support for your claim that reported rates are essentially constant regardless of actual rates come from? > And on top of all of that, this report is likely going to be used as a giant war banner in the police union's fight to reduce the use of body cameras.... And here you go with the actual justification for your criticism. You don't have a scientific criticism. You have a political one. You want to discredit the study because you don't like the conclusion. Maybe this study is flawed, but you don't establish that by asserting that it's impossible to even measure or by claiming (without any evidence of your own) that there's no link between actual use of force and reports of use of force. > It arbitrarily privileges "reported uses of force" as the target of attention rather than "witnessed crimes and other violations". Exactly how do you imagine that you would track "witnessed crimes and other violations" in absence of reports of those things?
- BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
  > you start with the premise that it's literally impossible that they are correct. I'm going to let you drift here, because you're continuing to respond to strawman interpretations of me rather than what I actually said and I'm not interested in the game of shifting goalposts.
  - dpark 9y ago
    ”This is literally impossible.” That’s a direct quote. It is exactly what you said and it was exactly the first thing you said. Accusing me of “strawman interpretations” is just dishonest, but quite in keeping with the rest of your comments here.

dpark 9y ago

> I'm critiquing a political abuse of a bogus study and also the bogus study itself... It's disappointing but not surprising that you accuse them of "political abuse". Your own criticism seems clearly political because you start with the premise that it's literally impossible that they are correct. I actually agree with you that the results here feel suspect because they run so counter to my expectations, but I find it sad that this is how you put forward your agenda. > Bullshit. I'm telling you that correlation doesn't imply causation and rather than saying "oh yeah, I heard that once somewhere, it was probably important" your response is "but physics jargon". "Correlation is not causation" is a great response to erroneous conclusions drawn from studies constructed to establish correlation. It's a really poor response to a study designed to establish causation. If you believe that it is in general impossible to establish causation, then you are indeed just making an epistemological argument. If you have a problem with the construction of the study and believe it doesn't establish causation, because of X, Y, and Z, then provide that criticism. Don't assert that it's wrong because measurement is impossible. Even if we accept that claim as true, it's still a useless criticism because it means the best we can do is our indirect measurements and we are left with no option except to optimize for those. > They are measuring one thing and making, and these next words are key, an unreasonable leap onto something very different. It's not an unreasonable leap. A priori, many people would agree that a reduction in police use of force would result in a reduction of reports of use of force by both police and civilians. Previous studies indicated the same a posteriori. Clearly many people find the leap very reasonable. I believe the only reason you find it unreasonable is that you don't like the conclusion it leads to in this study. > In your boson world nobody ever doesn't report something that happened. In the real world that is very clearly false. Not sure what you're talking about. Erroneous measurements happen all the time in the scientific world. It was really hard for scientists to prove the existence of the Higgs boson because it's so hard to even detect. > They assume that reporting rates are predictable for different circumstances just by guessing, which is not a reliable assumption. Where does this claim come from? Did I miss something where the authors claimed that reporting would definitely be 100% consistent? And where does the support for your claim that reported rates are essentially constant regardless of actual rates come from? > And on top of all of that, this report is likely going to be used as a giant war banner in the police union's fight to reduce the use of body cameras.... And here you go with the actual justification for your criticism. You don't have a scientific criticism. You have a political one. You want to discredit the study because you don't like the conclusion. Maybe this study is flawed, but you don't establish that by asserting that it's impossible to even measure or by claiming (without any evidence of your own) that there's no link between actual use of force and reports of use of force. > It arbitrarily privileges "reported uses of force" as the target of attention rather than "witnessed crimes and other violations". Exactly how do you imagine that you would track "witnessed crimes and other violations" in absence of reports of those things?

BugsJustFindMe 9y ago
> you start with the premise that it's literally impossible that they are correct. I'm going to let you drift here, because you're continuing to respond to strawman interpretations of me rather than what I actually said and I'm not interested in the game of shifting goalposts.
- dpark 9y ago
  ”This is literally impossible.” That’s a direct quote. It is exactly what you said and it was exactly the first thing you said. Accusing me of “strawman interpretations” is just dishonest, but quite in keeping with the rest of your comments here.