2 ms·

> He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists This is the crux of the matter. I don't agree with that statement. I believe the prov

> He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists This is the crux of the matter. I don't agree with that statement. I believe the provided evidence does not support that claim in any meaningful sense. I would at least agree that it suggests to seriously entertain the possibility though. I'm not sure what to make of your true/false response. Suppose I claim that apples have a higher chance of poisoning you than oranges. Evidence that someone at some point made an effort to put poison into the apple supply does not directly support that claim. However if credible it is certainly cause to entertain the possibility. More generally a claim about a possibility (discreet) can be supported by an event but a claim about averages (statistical) requires population data. Further, a claim that X is more likely than Y is a claim involving multiple populations.

Retric 8mo ago
> Evidence that someone at some point made an effort to put poison into the apple supply does not directly support that claim. However if credible it is certainly cause to entertain the possibility. Go from the other direction suppose you had millions of cases. By your logic 1 cases is not evidence. Two cases is therefore 0 + 0 = 0 no evidence. Thus by induction 1 million cases is still not evidence. Instead 1 case is weak evidence because each individual cases adds up. For more rigorous analysis see bayesian statistics. Further the article isn’t referring to a single solidity case but instead multiple independent events.