/sci/ - Science & Math

Fuck off racist

>>5375472
What do Feminism and crime statistics have to do with race?

>How the hell can you know what someone doesn't tell you?
you can't

but seriously fuck /pol/, the board is a cesspool of hate, self-delusion and willful ignorance

>it's /pol/ here

>>5375481
I come seeking knowledge and insight and you disregard me for "willful ignorance".

Nice cognitive dissonance.

>>5375485
hide tripfag posts
ignore tripfag posters
do not reply to tripfag threads

/tg/ here, we also talk about this stuff not infrequently, so we'd like your opinion too /sci/.

>>5375493
sory brah, i forgot that anomynoose is leegin

>>5375479
>crime statistics and race

aw shit

>>5375490
no, you individually may not be representative of the board as a whole.

>>5375490
I don't know why you're asking this *again*, though. You made a similar thread earlier and people sufficiently answered your question.

>>5375501
no individual is.

all i can say i actually got to make a feminist a sandwich for me. she even cut it diagonally into 2 for me

serious answer:
i would imagine that there are some sort of non police surveys carried out asking women if they had ever been raped. This would then be compared to police records of reported rapes and then adjusting for sample size etc you could work out what % of rape is unreported. Obviously there are flaws in this system and I dont know if 50% is even the correct number but that would be my guess

>>5375507
>no individual is.
agreed (although we might entertain some notion of the 'typical' participant in the /pol/ community)
I should have been more specific: I was criticizing the general temperament, attitudes, and opinions of the board and not the particular poster.

>>5375466

Much of that data is collected through anonymous surveys. So naturally the reliability is questionable, but that doesn't necessarily mean the phenomenon should be ignored. If nothing else it shows that a lot of women feel the need to state they were raped in an anonymous survey, which could point to something significant.

Another issue is the fact that rape today is a very broad term. I suspect the report rate for forced, dark alleyway rape would be different for date rape, would be different for family rape.

>>5375504
only threa i've made on /sci/ since 2011 actually

>>5375508
How did you do that?

>>5375520
Told her she couldn't, feminists hate being told they can't do things

>>5375510
>i would imagine that there are some sort of non police surveys carried out asking women if they had ever been raped.
there have been
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/
>Obviously there are flaws in this system
there are, as a careful examination of the above will reveal

>>5375518
>If nothing else it shows that a lot of women feel the need to state they were raped in an anonymous survey, which could point to something significant.
That women feel overly happy to throw about libellous accusations when they know they won't actually come under legal scrutiny.

>Another issue is the fact that rape today is a very broad term.
Your list misses out "regretting it afterwards", "being drunk during" and "the guy doesn't want a relationship the next day"

>>5375513
i would contest that /pol/ is misunderstood.

whilst it has the most discussion of race and sexism and economics, the number of people on the board who literally believe jews/africans are inferior are a small minority.

Most of them are "racialists" and don't hate other races so much as what they perceive as forced multiculturalism

>>5375529

>That women feel overly happy to throw about libellous accusations when they know they won't actually come under legal scrutiny.
By making this claim with no empirical support you are no better than the Feminists.

>Your list misses out "regretting it afterwards", "being drunk during" and "the guy doesn't want a relationship the next day"
Three examples are not a comprehensive list. Besides, I was talking about legitimate instances of rape.

>>5375533
>legitimate rape

rape is rape.

>>5375533
Not the one you're talking to, but you're talking abou-

>>5375537
Beat me to it.

When we're talking self-reported "rape," "rape" is defined as whatever the questioner and/or respondent (depending on format) defines it as. This would obviously have a substantial impact in the results.

>>5375519
Apologies. Someone crossposted the thread you linked on /pol/ and /sci/.

The simple answer is, they make shit up for ideological purposes. There is no way of collecting such data, because even if the people making those assertions actually bothered to do polls, those polls would be hopelessly, uselessly unreliable. It's literally impossible to accurately estimate the number of rape victims, who never report the crime to either the police or a poller, for example.

>>5375537

>Get Drunk and fuck someone
>HELP HELP I WAS RAPED IM BEING OPPRESSED

>>5375537
>>5375539

...And? I specifically said that different definitions of rape would have different rates of unreporting.

>>5375532
>the number of people on the board who literally believe jews/africans are inferior are a small minority.
Not outside the realm of plausibility, but given that it's an anonymous board there's no way that the general user/poster/lurker can ascertain the level of samefaggotry.

>Most of them are "racialists" and don't hate other races so much as what they perceive as forced multiculturalism
Leaving aside 'most' (per above), at the end of the day there's something to be said for that contention. Just as there's something to be said for the accusation that 'liberals' in America seek global empowerment of the workers in a way that renders obsolete Westphalian sovereignty. Many (probably most) do not, but certainly some do and are not shy about it; thus such things are not solely a fever dream of the American extreme right.

>>5375533
>By making this claim with no empirical support
Firstly, it's not a claim; it's what the studies you, /sci/, referred to meant. "Surveys show more people saying X than X cases in court" = "People say X more than they take X to court"

What possible "empirical support" could there be for that connection? It's a statement of fact, the facts you claimed.

Secondly, "empirical support" is impossible anyway, as evidence can only debunk theories; never prove them. You should really know the scientific method if you're going to call yourselves /sci/entists.

>Besides, I was talking about legitimate instances of rape.
No, you said it was a "board term". It is biased to then only list instances you consider "legitimate" as though they are the only things meant by that broad term.

This is lying with statistics, and is where scientists today have gone wrong.

>>5375551

>Firstly, it's not a claim; it's what the studies you, /sci/, referred to meant
According to United States law, a necessary condition for libel is that the statement was false. So if rape actually occurred, the statements made by those women would not be libellous. By claiming that they are you are claiming that no instance of rape occurred.

>What possible "empirical support" could there be for that connection?
That the instance of rape did not occur.

>Secondly, "empirical support" is impossible anyway, as evidence can only debunk theories; never prove them
Support does not mean proof. Observing microwave background radiation does not prove that the universe originated from the Big Bang. But it does make that theory seem more plausible.

>No, you said it was a "board term". It is biased to then only list instances you consider "legitimate" as though they are the only things meant by that broad term.
Examples are not a comprehensive list, and are chosen for didactic purposes rather than to be a representative sample.

>This is lying with statistics
No. This is you misunderstanding science. If I were offering a representative sample, I would have said so and provided the necessary information for you to replicate it.

LEL WE'RE /sci/ AND WE'RE BETTER THAN THE REST OF 4CHAN!!

>>5375562
Well, we are.

>>5375561
>By claiming that they are you are claiming that no instance of rape occurred.
By claiming that they're not, none of those accusations must be false.

But this is provably wrong when we compare to actual court cases, where accusations have been found false.

Comparing to court cases is /the way these studies claim validity/. By their own logic, they include false, libellous, claims.

>But it does make that theory seem more plausible.
lol @ lack of scientific method. "Seem more plausible" has no place in critical thinking. It's a statement of feeling. "I've got a hunch this way now".

Unless you want something else by that, which you can't express.

>and are chosen for didactic purposes rather than to be a representative sample.
You've already admitted you chose "legitimate" examples, making the list biased.

>This is you misunderstanding science.
No, this is you doing what real scientists and the politicians and special interest groups that use their statistics do: quote science and research results, then append your own conclusions and implications and let people think "it's next to numbers, it must be a fact".

It's dishonest. Lying.

>>5375563
All of 4chan is a cesspool, son.

>>5375572

>By claiming that they're not, none of those accusations must be false.
Which is why I never said, these claims are not libel. I said, you have no evidence to sustain that these claims are libel.

>lol @ lack of scientific method. "Seem more plausible" has no place in critical thinking. It's a statement of feeling. "I've got a hunch this way now".
A theory makes a testable claim. We test it. If it turns out correct, we have more confidence that it works. That's how empirical reasoning works.

>You've already admitted you chose "legitimate" examples, making the list biased.
Again, there is no reason whatsoever for three examples to conform to any standards of representation or lack of bias whatsoever.

>No, this is you doing what real scientists [snip] do:
Yes.

>>5375574
I wasn't claiming anything to the contrary, creepy uncle.

>>5375579
The point is, you're not better.

To actually answer the question, it's called statistical extrapolation. To put it simply,we know how man rapes occur, and we also know how many rapes don't go reported by people reporting them post facto. So, we build a model to estimate how many rapes should occur each year...call that number x. Then we look at how many rapes actually occur..call that y. y-x=how many rapes go unreported.

>>5375578
>you have no evidence to sustain that these claims are libel.
Except I do; the same "evidence" which, according to the logic of these surveys, gives them any use at all: if they compare reported rapes to convicted rapes to estimate total unreported rapes, we can logically do the comparison the other way, comparing proven false accusations to claimed rapes reported to the surveys.

This will result in a nonzero number of false rape claims reported to the surveys. Hence, libellous claims.

Even directly comparing them will render an overly low number of false claims, because there will be more false claims women are willing to make when it doesn't come under the scrutiny of a courtroom.

>We test it. If it turns out correct, we have more confidence that it works.
My claim has correct reasoning behind it, which I have just explained to you above, for the second time. Feminist claims do not. This is regardless of empirical reasoning supposedly works.

"Having more confidence" in something doesn't make sense. Do you believe it or not? How much confidence (and how many tests) must it get before you believe it, or before it's proven? The idea that the scientific method is merely what "seems plausible" or what "we have confidence in" is not reassuring, or a good way of finding knowledge.

>Again, there is no reason whatsoever for three examples to conform to any standards of representation or lack of bias whatsoever.
Don't say again when you haven't said that before. Don't present biased and misleading content that implies conclusions unrelated to the premise.

>Yes.
Don't flatter yourself. The only thing you have in common with real scientists is not knowing the scientific method well enough to be able to present unbiased claims if you tried.

>>5375578
>>No, this is you doing what real scientists [snip] do:
>Yes.
I see you just ignored an actual claim of fact and made a "witty" retort. Very scientific. Directly debunking the central point indeed.

I can see why even /pol/ thinks this board is bad at this, and that's from someone who frequents neither board but loves both topics.

There's a bunch of libtards on this board it seems. It's a shame that even so-called men of science are under the influence of the juden. Perhaps I should go on a campaign to red pill this board.

I don't know what is worse.
/pol/, a board i frequent, being so scientifically illiterate and being shitty with its general behaviour.

Or

/sci/, although keeping inline with the scientific method for empirical data, willfully presuming ignorance of the opposition.

Statistics, generally mean jack shit. They are a number, which can be skewed through the looking glass. Also, is it largely engineers who cross the line between /pol/ and /sci/?