From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 12:26:02 MDT
This from one of my favorite sites (when I'm not at Virus of course!)
<q>
Faith-Based Fudging
Many people have probably heard the report that, according to a
scientific study, prisoners who go through Charles Colson's InnerChange
program have a lower recidivism rate. This is a religious program
consisting of intensive prayer, counseling, and religious
evangelization. Conservatives and Christians have seized upon this study
as proof that the government should be funding religious programs
because, after all, "they work." Or do they?
Mark A.R. Kleiman has an article in Slate where explains, in some
detail, that the truth is very different. He is cautious to suggest that
this isn't likely a case of lying, but the deliberate shading of results
by the authors is not far off of lying, while the failure of others to
read the study closely is not far short of incompetency.
The basic problem is that not all of the results were reported in the
news. Only 75 of the original 177 inmates constituted the group that was
so successful. The ones that didn't "complete" the program... were
ignored. This is called "selection bias," "creaming," "cherry picking,"
and "cooking the books." It's simply not honest.
InnerChange started with 177 volunteer prisoners but only 75 of them
"graduated." Graduation involved sticking with the program, not only in
prison but after release. No one counted as a graduate, for example,
unless he got a job. Naturally, the graduates did better than the
control group. Anything that selects out from a group of ex-inmates
those who hold jobs is going to look like a miracle cure, because
getting a job is among the very best predictors of staying out of
trouble. And inmates who stick with a demanding program of
self-improvement through 16 months probably have more inner resources,
and a stronger determination to turn their lives around, than the
average inmate.
The InnerChange cheerleaders simply ignored the other 102 participants
who dropped out, were kicked out, or got early parole and didn't finish.
Naturally, the non-graduates did worse than the control group. If you
select out the winners, you leave mostly losers.
What we have here from those who have latched on to the study is that
they are using faith as a basis for belief in the efficacy of
faith-based programs. Somehow that seems oddly appropriate.
</q>
All too familiar.
Also to be found are, for instance:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_skep_index.htm?PM
=ss14_atheism
Skepticism & Critical Thinking
Well worth perusing.
Also the ominous
<q>
Anarchist Website Puts Man in Jail
Should a person go to jail just for linking to websites that post
information about how to make bombs? That appears to be the position of
the United States government. Sherman Austin has been sentenced for
doing just that - he pled guilty to "distributing information related to
explosives" because he was afraid that he would be charged under
anti-terrorism laws, a designation that might put him in a deep, dark
hole from which he would never be heard from again.
Newsday reports:
Austin told the judge Monday he "wasn't really thinking" when he created
the Web site. "I'd be devastated if someone used this information to
harm others," he said. ...Austin said he took a plea bargain because he
feared his case was eligible for a terrorism enhancement, which could
have added 20 years to his sentence. The plea deal had called for him to
serve four months.
This is not the first time that a criminal defendant has felt pressure
to plead guilty to something in order to avoid the excessive power of
government prosecutors under recent anti-terrorism laws. The question
is, who will be next? You?
</q>
leads me to believe that the Sovietization of America is proceeding
apace. Ironic.
Best regards
Blunderov
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 21:19:54 MDT