3 ms·

That is an unimportant nitpick, precisely the kind of objection that people are taught to raise in the face of "racist" facts. I assure you that the academics

That is an unimportant nitpick, precisely the kind of objection that people are taught to raise in the face of "racist" facts. I assure you that the academics involved, all certified non-racists (and mostly non-economists if you don't trust them), are aware of this and either consider the bias to be small (in comparison with the effect being measured) or have corrected for it.

dragonwriter 13y ago
No, the fact that the supposed fact cannot actually be supported except by assuming the non-demonstrable non-existence (or irrelevance) of several other kinds of bias is not an "unimportant nitpick", as it means that the "fact" is nothing of the sort, but a conclusion based in non-falsifiable conjecture. (Note that I haven't said anything about whether or not its "racist" -- that's your deal -- I'm just saying that characterizing it as a fact is unjustifiable.)
- 001sky 13y ago
  No, the fact that the supposed fact cannot actually be supported except by assuming the non-demonstrable non-existence (or irrelevance) of several other kinds of bias... Is this a parody of logic? Your point is not clear, regardless.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    His point is crystal clear: he's saying you can't claim to rigorously study a relationship between race and crime by relying solely on conviction data, because racial prejudice and its legacy (for instance: what neighborhoods different races tend to live in, and whether those neighborhoods are enforcement priorities) has a profound impact on criminal conviction.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      But I could also argue that not all crimes are caught in the data, because the law is written wrong. In fact, I could argue the law as it is written is thus criminal. After all, this is a democracy and the people are responsible for the laws. The people are incapable of drafting the laws in a non discriminatory manner (because racial prejudice and its legacy). Or, I could argue the exact opposite. Both are equaly weak/strong. But, this style of debate is incoherent. For it to be coherent, it would require special knowledge. And is otherwise a variant of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Any empirical work will involve questions of whether you are truly measuring the effect you want to measure. However I am claiming, based on my knowledge of the field, that researchers have adequately dealt with this, and come to the conclusion that Black people really do commit more crime, after taking into account all observable economic and social effects. Another replier has already mentioned that you can measure crimes that are less subject to bias in prosecution (like homicide. If there was an easy way to explain the apparent excess of criminality in Black people by these means, I'm sure I would have read about it in the academic literature.
ljf 13y ago
As all we have is conviction data, we can only see the crimes people care about seeing the criminals punished for. There are plenty of crimes that go unpunished, and therefore groups can end up under reported, as the crimes they commit are for various reason ignored.

dragonwriter 13y ago

No, the fact that the supposed fact cannot actually be supported except by assuming the non-demonstrable non-existence (or irrelevance) of several other kinds of bias is not an "unimportant nitpick", as it means that the "fact" is nothing of the sort, but a conclusion based in non-falsifiable conjecture. (Note that I haven't said anything about whether or not its "racist" -- that's your deal -- I'm just saying that characterizing it as a fact is unjustifiable.)

001sky 13y ago
No, the fact that the supposed fact cannot actually be supported except by assuming the non-demonstrable non-existence (or irrelevance) of several other kinds of bias... Is this a parody of logic? Your point is not clear, regardless.
- tptacek 13y ago
  His point is crystal clear: he's saying you can't claim to rigorously study a relationship between race and crime by relying solely on conviction data, because racial prejudice and its legacy (for instance: what neighborhoods different races tend to live in, and whether those neighborhoods are enforcement priorities) has a profound impact on criminal conviction.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    But I could also argue that not all crimes are caught in the data, because the law is written wrong. In fact, I could argue the law as it is written is thus criminal. After all, this is a democracy and the people are responsible for the laws. The people are incapable of drafting the laws in a non discriminatory manner (because racial prejudice and its legacy). Or, I could argue the exact opposite. Both are equaly weak/strong. But, this style of debate is incoherent. For it to be coherent, it would require special knowledge. And is otherwise a variant of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
yetanotherphd 13y ago
Any empirical work will involve questions of whether you are truly measuring the effect you want to measure. However I am claiming, based on my knowledge of the field, that researchers have adequately dealt with this, and come to the conclusion that Black people really do commit more crime, after taking into account all observable economic and social effects. Another replier has already mentioned that you can measure crimes that are less subject to bias in prosecution (like homicide. If there was an easy way to explain the apparent excess of criminality in Black people by these means, I'm sure I would have read about it in the academic literature.

ljf 13y ago

As all we have is conviction data, we can only see the crimes people care about seeing the criminals punished for. There are plenty of crimes that go unpunished, and therefore groups can end up under reported, as the crimes they commit are for various reason ignored.