I am scratching my head here. You are offended that I have attacked you and your motivations, yet you get off on calling me naive and proceed to tell me I have missed the nuance? That's awesome.
I'm saying you're taking a naive approach to the argument, that's not an insult. I'm not saying you, yourself, are a naive person. I do think it's obvious that the nuance was lost because it wasn't addressed.
I also don't understand why you're so interested in proving or at least claiming what my motivations are to an argument, rather than discussing the argument on the merits.
If someone makes a claim that Jennings scoreD more than Love on a PPM basis in the previous season, is that a logical argument or simply an operation performed on the data?
Nate... bro, slow up a bit... you're changing the argument (again).
The argument wasn't "Jennings
scored (past tense) more than Love on a PPM basis in the previous season." That wouldn't be an argument, but a statement of fact (true or otherwise).
The argument was "Jennings
scores (present/future tense) more than Love per minute." That is an argument as it's predictive. It's saying that because in some given framework, A > B was true, and since A > B was true in that framework then it will continue to be true.
This is flawed for numerous reasons.
Primarily, because you haven't actually evaluated
Jennings > Love, but more descriptively the function
Pistons15(Jennings15)=y > Cavs15(Love15)=z.
Again, you've not evaluated either Love or Jennings because you've not teased out an independent, normalized, representation of their numbers. So you have no predictive power in your claim; and thus, you cannot say that "Jennings scores more than Love per minute," as it's a non sequitur.
The problem is that you are conflating a past observation with a future prediction, when the two are completely different and not derived using the same methodology.
Not WHY it is so, but just that claim. Can we agree that it's an observation/operation/data?
Nate, by definition, performing non-reversible operations on data results in loss of data; so you can't claim observational data is equivalent to that which you derive through performing some operation or non-reversible transformation.
Saying "Blacks" committed approximately x number of crimes in 2015 within the United States, would be a statement of fact (true, or otherwise) that can be challenged by challenging the observation itself - but no argument is being made.
Saying Blacks commit (tense) more crimes than any other race of people is an argument based on some set of opaque data that's not readily transformed into any metrics that would logically support the claim being made. An argument is here, rooted in the predictive nature of the claim. This is what you're missing.
In fact, observations are what leads us to the "why?" which leads us to things like FGA, health, role, etc.
I'm not really going to argue the difference between observed data and data derived by performing transformations/operations; I think we've covered this.
I am not assuming you are being intellectually disingenuous, just that you are crusading here against nothing.
But again, you're saying that my argument is a "crusade," so it makes it clear that you're discounting it.
I'm explaining, in detail, why the original statement is invalid. I've already done so 5 times.
I see it as:
-Some study somewhere said blacks commit crimes at hire rates, on a crimes/blacks basis, which is some sort of data point. I don't understand how a data point gets you up in arms.
1) I'm not "up in arms," that's your own personal opinion but I don't know what it has to do with what I'm saying.
2) AGAIN, you've stated that the conclusions of a study would be considered an inarguable "data point," which is frankly a bit absurd, but more to the point it simply is not mathematically sound.
Empirical observation (the data used in the study, if accurate) is what we would consider as data points, and we only use data that we firmly believe to be accurate.
I'm explaining why (a) the data is not as accurate as you might think, and (2) does not provide enough information to make a predictive claim.
You've not really refuted anything I've said, but instead, gone after me for some reason.
-Now, what is more interesting & important are these critical things, among others:
-who made the study?
There's no study that's been cited, it was a claim made by a known racist on the forum. He's using National FBI / BJS crime data reporting to make a common claim. I've explained this I think.
-what data did they use and where did they get it?
Explained, numerous times.
-other research methods and why they were chosen?
Explained.
-what conclusions, if any, were drawn from this study?
The conclusion isn't in the report, it's being made here on the forum. That conclusion is the argument you keep referring to as a data point.
-what other studies have to say? Where to look next for more answers and new studies.
Sociologists generally disagree with the assertion that race and criminality share any link whatsoever. I've already said this though, which is again, why I think you should re-read my posts.
I just don't think you can argue the validity of a data point or an operation on it.
Arguing against observational data, in general, dismisses the argument on it's face as you're rejecting the premise. There's nothing wrong with this. Much observational data is not accurately measured to begin with, or not representative of what was intended to be measured.
Saying you can't argue against performing specific operations on a data set to derive a supposed conclusion is ridiculous; of course you can.
I've already given you an example; to which you ignored. Think back to your physics class; recall the formula
f=ma, a simple arithmetic problem. Also, keep in mind that it's one of the most fundamental laws of motion, and that 95% of college graduates would assume it is wholly accurate. Now understand that it doesn't work, and hopefully now you can understand how we can challenge the validity of both observational data and the operations you perform on it.
But before you reply, think about what is being said here.
I thought someone was saying as much, and then you got fired up about it.
I'm not sure why folks are thinking that I'm "fired up." I'm literally chilling at my desk.
I don't know where anyone was drawing any conclusions or making any arguments on the data.
I've explained this enough times already.
If you are arguing something and feel that I haven't read it,
I think you've just skipped over it and jumped to a conclusion.
or can't "comprehend" it,
I wouldn't ever say this about anyone.
or maybe I am just too naive to get it, then now you are just being condescending.
You're essentially arguing with yourself; I've not said any of this to you, nor would I.
You twisted someone's assertion and fought against the implications that someone somewhere had made, and now I don't understand? Well I guess I'm not on your level.
You've not argued against the claim that was made, instead you jumped into an argument that you've not actually read into and for what reason I've no idea.
A claim was made that "Black people commit more crimes than any other race of people," and you're saying you don't understand how that is an argument and not a fact? If that's honestly your position, then your position is as ridiculous as the claim.
Which.. is really what this boils down to, isn't it?
yet you will somehow conclude that you aren't being annoying and are annoyed. Nobody has time for this shit. I can't believe I got sucked in. Fuck.
If you don't have time for it, why respond? I went out of my way to try and have a thoughtful conversation, yet you've decided that you're annoyed, I'm being condescending, etc etc...
I tried...
Again, I think I'm wasting my time.