I don't think that's fair. He asked about statistical defensibility (implies an entire dataset) and was handed something that definitely does not qualify. What was provided certainly makes it clear that it's a reasonable thing to wonder about but it doesn't (at least I don't think) rise to the level of actually supporting the claim in question.

▲

Retric 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> statistical defensibility

Requesting an arbitrarily high standard doesn’t create any obligation. Evidence of a high standard does.

▲

fc417fc802 9 hours ago | parent [-]

There's no obligation in either direction in this context (idle chitchat) unless of course you care to convince someone of something.

He objected to what was provided and you accused him of ignoring evidence. I'm voicing agreement with his objection. The original claim was one of a statistical nature. Thus any purported evidence should be expected to match.

▲

Retric 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> of a statistical nature. (True) … should be expected to match. (False)

If a group is more likely to be X than the average population then being a member of that group is statistical evidence you are X. Really when referring to statistical evidence here it’s an indication the evidence is of a very low standard not a high one.

He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists which doesn’t actually mean much which is kind of a point on its own. That being it’s the same low standard as used by actual racists, but as you said there’s no actual obligation to go beyond such wordplay. Personally I was very amused by the whole thing but obviously it’s quite offensive to some people.

Taking the other side of this one, you could say something like “sure the odds at least one of them are white supremacists is non trivial, but suggesting all seven are is unlikely.” Again not a strong argument, but it’s at minimum an actual argument.

	▲	fc417fc802 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> He provided evidence that cops are more likely to be white supremacists This is the crux of the matter. I don't agree with that statement. I believe the provided evidence does not support that claim in any meaningful sense. I would at least agree that it suggests to seriously entertain the possibility though. I'm not sure what to make of your true/false response. Suppose I claim that apples have a higher chance of poisoning you than oranges. Evidence that someone at some point made an effort to put poison into the apple supply does not directly support that claim. However if credible it is certainly cause to entertain the possibility. More generally a claim about a possibility (discreet) can be supported by an event but a claim about averages (statistical) requires population data. Further, a claim that X is more likely than Y is a claim involving multiple populations.