Or (and I find it deeply unrealistic that this didn't occur to you, because it's been the core of one of the most visible public debates in modern history for the last year), the number of rapists in the general population is uncomfortably large, and the number of false accusations is very low. Didn't someone link a study upthread that indicated that an appalling percentage of men admitted to rape when it was phrased as something other than rape?
I also take exception to your maths: you have a calculation that takes a 5% false accusation rate, and somehow turns that into 72% of accusations being false. Without a very clear explanation of how that works, I can only conclude that there's either an error or some sleight of hand going on. A 5% false accusation rate is not compatible with 72% of accusations being false. And given that I've already seen you on another thread substituting the ECHR's judgement on Turkish politics for EU policy on Muslim immigrants, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a remarkable quirk of statistics I'm just not getting.
First off, if i recall correctly, i listed ECHR's judgment of certain parts of Sharia law being incompatible with democracy. I mistook ECHR as part of EU, that is true and I corrected myself once pointed out. You have to realize this mistake on my part in
no way reverses their finding and the judgment stands. You are free to disagree with that judgement if you so desire. But say it out loud explicitly.
Secondly, LOL seriously? Because we disagreed on the topic regarding muslim immigrants, more specifically, that I agreed with ECHR that the Sharia laws are not compatible with democracy, it automatically disqualifies anything I say? How tribal can you get?
Don't be ridiculous, how's this behavior any different from the tribal Republicans you seem to enjoy making fun of?
Lastly, I think with the sole exception of Sol (perhaps some others), most of you don't really understand how to perceive, let alone how to calculate, conditional probabilities when it involves false positives and false negatives.
It did not "
somehow turn that into 72% of accusations being false", there is
no slight of hand, take (or retake) stat 101 in college, you will run into similar questions in class, and hopefully learn to do them for the first (or this) time.
Let's review what false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 2-10% applies to 950, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.
I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand/wrap your head around runbikerun:
Given 2-10% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 26%.
-----------------------------------------------
I'm going to apply a test I like to use in cases like these: I change something that doesn't impact in the maths, then reread the changed outcomes and see if it looks even vaguely sensible.
Let's replace "false accusation" with "wrongful conviction", and leave all the numbers as they are. The vast majority of the population has never been wrongfully convicted, but now almost three-quarters of our prison populations quite literally never did anything illegal. If anisotropy's math holds up, and if we accept a wrongful conviction rate of 5% (not a mad figure), then the numbers lead us directly to the conclusion that the prison system is designed to punish completely innocent people.
I hold no great love for the American prison system, but even I don't think 3/4 of prisoners are as pure as the driven snow. And yet, if anisotropy's math is correct, that's the case. There are two possible conclusions: the math is fatally flawed, or Western society is a brutalised hellscape. Bad as things are, I really don't think the second is true.
Again, your wrongfully accused
If your premise is wrongful
conviction, you must then first # people convicted, and # of people charged. Then you need to identify the false positive rate, which i have no clue what, but let's say we use the same 5%. What would you then use as false negative? crimes unreported?
Until we change the numbers to reflect the new premise, we can not have sensible outcomes. Luckily someone already did some of the hard work for us:
"
How many other Glenn Fords are still behind bars? How many will die there? Just how often does our venerated justice system fail? Rarely, at least according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In a 2006 opinion he cited an approximate error rate of 0.027 percent, based on back-of-the-envelope calculations by an Oregon district attorney in a fiery op-ed for the New York Times. The op-ed was in response to a report by Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, cataloguing 340 exonerations between 1989 and 2003. “Let’s give the professor the benefit of the doubt,” the op-ed read. “Let’s assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren’t involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent — or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/The error rate, when it comes to being wrongly convicted, is a much smaller 0.027% leading to a success rate of 99.973%. When you use 0.027% as the false positive rate, and do the calculation as Sam Gross did, you arrive at wrongfully convicted being ~4%. I am afraid based on what you said you dont understand conditional probabilities at all.