On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 04:18:53PM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:53:33AM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
> >
> > > Paul M Foster wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:35:35PM -0400, Robert Haeckl wrote:
> >snip
> > I was thinking about this last night. It occurs to me that what we're
> > calling "profiling" is really inductive or deductive reasoning
> > (depending on the circumstances). Sherlock Holmes was the master of
> > this. Scientific inquiry is pulled along by this as well. In the absence
> > of plain and clear facts, one must rely on probabilities and tendencies.
> >
>
> No, inductive and deductive reasoning have nothing to do with
> statistics. If profiling is a screening mechanism, it must have known
> qualitative and quantitative error rates. If you can find me even the
> semblance of a scientific study that shows racial profiling as a
> screening tool with qualitative and quantitative accuracy rates
> approaching 90%, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I'm sure
> it won't be there.
>
Well, I don't have time to do a full web search and read everything
there is on the subject to find the nugget you want. I did check the
Academy of Behavioral Profiling, though (http://www.profiling.org). They
seem to have quite a few reference materials on the subject. Are you
saying that all profiling done by law enforcement agencies is based on
false premises and is invalid? If so, they've made a considerable
investment in something that doesn't work. Wouldn't be the first time,
but.... You're singling out racial profiling. Is other profiling okay,
just not racial profiling?
I think Jim Wildman was correct-- we all profile other people and
circumstances for any number of reasons. We don't normally call it
"profiling", but that's effectively what it is. I would tentatively
define it as, "The use of statistics or past experience to predict
current or future events."
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:42:58 EDT