4 ms·

The guiding principle of science is to never assume that the results are correct. Two observations: this is a highly political topic and there is highly politi

The guiding principle of science is to never assume that the results are correct. Two observations: this is a highly political topic and there is highly political language in the linked article. Its conclusions also rely on the integrity of a multitude of referenced studies. What this article and topic deserves is a colonoscopy level research critique / review.

Neywiny 2y ago
Yeah multi million dollar decisions, lifesaving decisions, this is intense.
lazide 2y ago
Also there have been a history of ‘industry’ influenced studies in the opposite direction. The whole thing is solidly dirty.
smt88 2y ago
I don't see political language at all. I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic. There's a for-profit corporation selling snake-oil to cities, and then there are people (like the researcher/author) who want to reduce crime and save taxpayer money. It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result. Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like: > " None of the seven prior investigation evaluations identified by my colleagues and I found evidence that case clearance increased following ShotSpotter deployment. While these findings read as an indictment of the technology, future research should determine if the manner by which police implement and utilize ShotSpotter impacts the likelihood that program goals will be met."
- mrangle 2y ago
  >I don't see political language at all. The article links to openly political articles. Whatever the supposed context (excuse), this is a political act in the context of a research presentation. As if this is not enough, the article quotes unsupported statements of Brandon Johnson as well as counterarguments (though the latter are mostly burred in the article link). Which is unnecessary to present their data and is unequivocally political. That they are "both siding" the political argument should not be an argument: a. because it is on its face inappropriate in such a presentation and b. such a tack tries to hurdle the obvious critique question that would follow. Which is whether both sides are presented evenly. Are they acting as political journalists or trying to present data? Give us a break. The authors can write what they wish, of course, but don't ask us to turn a blind eye to the politics that are inserted into the article. Whatever the excuse. > I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic. The topic is openly politicized, as everyone can see from the fact that it is hotly debated on the political stage. It is difficult to believe that you are being serious. >There's a for-profit corporation selling snake-oil to cities, and then there are people (like the researcher/author) who want to reduce crime and save taxpayer money. Okay, I see. I rest my case. What a waste of time. >It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result. It reads to me like you don't understand the relevant principles under discussion when it comes to research. >Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like: Is this your idea of research critique? Because this is the type of analysis, generally speaking anyway, that is accomplished in actual competent research critique. And a lot more. Which was the sum of my comment. We must be in agreement that what this topic calls for is intensive critique and review of all research. I'll especially be interested in whether or not the metrics are even meaningful, let alone if the results are high evidence, or if the research design itself is faulty. Of course, I wouldn't dare suggest a political reason for that should I see obvious faults in it. Like I said, I'd await a real critique / review and let that speak for itself.
  - smt88 2y ago
    Reality that you disagree with is not automatically political.

Neywiny 2y ago

Yeah multi million dollar decisions, lifesaving decisions, this is intense.

lazide 2y ago

Also there have been a history of ‘industry’ influenced studies in the opposite direction. The whole thing is solidly dirty.

smt88 2y ago

I don't see political language at all. I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic. There's a for-profit corporation selling snake-oil to cities, and then there are people (like the researcher/author) who want to reduce crime and save taxpayer money. It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result. Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like: > " None of the seven prior investigation evaluations identified by my colleagues and I found evidence that case clearance increased following ShotSpotter deployment. While these findings read as an indictment of the technology, future research should determine if the manner by which police implement and utilize ShotSpotter impacts the likelihood that program goals will be met."

mrangle 2y ago
>I don't see political language at all. The article links to openly political articles. Whatever the supposed context (excuse), this is a political act in the context of a research presentation. As if this is not enough, the article quotes unsupported statements of Brandon Johnson as well as counterarguments (though the latter are mostly burred in the article link). Which is unnecessary to present their data and is unequivocally political. That they are "both siding" the political argument should not be an argument: a. because it is on its face inappropriate in such a presentation and b. such a tack tries to hurdle the obvious critique question that would follow. Which is whether both sides are presented evenly. Are they acting as political journalists or trying to present data? Give us a break. The authors can write what they wish, of course, but don't ask us to turn a blind eye to the politics that are inserted into the article. Whatever the excuse. > I also don't understand why this would be a politicized topic. The topic is openly politicized, as everyone can see from the fact that it is hotly debated on the political stage. It is difficult to believe that you are being serious. >There's a for-profit corporation selling snake-oil to cities, and then there are people (like the researcher/author) who want to reduce crime and save taxpayer money. Okay, I see. I rest my case. What a waste of time. >It's important to note that this researcher would easily get published regardless of what she found. If ShotSpotter works at all, that's a huge result! If it doesn't work, that's also very notable! And if the evidence is mixed, it still contradicts every other unbiased study that shows that ShotSpotter doesn't work. In a way, this was the most boring result. It reads to me like you don't understand the relevant principles under discussion when it comes to research. >Plus the author seems to go out of her way to be balanced, writing things like: Is this your idea of research critique? Because this is the type of analysis, generally speaking anyway, that is accomplished in actual competent research critique. And a lot more. Which was the sum of my comment. We must be in agreement that what this topic calls for is intensive critique and review of all research. I'll especially be interested in whether or not the metrics are even meaningful, let alone if the results are high evidence, or if the research design itself is faulty. Of course, I wouldn't dare suggest a political reason for that should I see obvious faults in it. Like I said, I'd await a real critique / review and let that speak for itself.
- smt88 2y ago
  Reality that you disagree with is not automatically political.