RE: One of the two terrorists involved in the Boston bombing has been killed
April 22, 2013 at 1:38 am
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2013 at 1:49 am by Shell B.)
(April 21, 2013 at 11:22 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Of course it effects it, because there are so few sociopaths and so few Muslims the probability of a sociopathic (non-religiously motivated) attack by a Muslim in the US is far far less than that of a sociopathic attack (non-religiously motivated) by a Christian. I don't know why this concept seems to be so hard to understand.
I can assure you that nothing about numbers is getting over his head. If I recall the conversation he and I had about it correctly, what he is saying is that the statistical incidence within that subgroup would be the same. Therefore, while the chances of the person being a Muslim are smaller, the chances of the person being a crazy Muslim once we have established he or she is Muslim is actually exactly the same as had it been any other subgroup. For example, had it been a white Christian, the chances still would have been .1% (or whatever statistic you gave for crazy). In other words, once we know the person is Muslim, the .8% becomes highly irrelevant. You now have an even playing field, as the rest of the population has been eliminated in the scenario. What remains are only Muslims, of which the very same amount are crazy as in any other subgroup. Does that make more sense?
Lilly is right. You have to be careful with statistical evidence, as it is often obtained using poor methods, whether the analysts know it or not. At least, it is according to Professor Ram Neta. However, it is not always anecdotal. I wouldn't have used that term. Now, that being said, population statistics are a little bit harder to fudge. Census is data really is not that bad, considering. It was a decent argument until the conclusion.
A=Muslims B=Americans C=Crazy people
.8 B are A
.1 B are C
.1 A are C
Therefore, it is less likely for A to be C.
That is essentially your argument and, in my opinion, it falls apart more clearly when represented thusly. Do you see how the first statistic becomes irrelevant when the rest of the 99.2% of the population are out of the equation?
I think I need to go to bed.
