They write “Instead of 1 in 5, the real number is 0.03 in 5.” So the first thing I will mock The Federalist for doing is directly comparing per year sexual assault rates to per college career sexual assault rates, whereas obviously these are very different things.
You can’t quite just divide the latter by four to get the former, but that’s going to work a heck of a lot better than not doing it, so let’s estimate the real discrepancy as more like 0.5% per year versus 5% per year.
Someone on my side published a study later that found something else 2.
Someone on my side accused it of having methodological flaws Since the Federalist has so amply demonstrated the first failure mode, let me say a little more about the second.
Their only recourse is to deny that the evidence is confusing, to assert that one side or the other has been “debunked”.
If you can’t do that, you say “I think that my side of the academic debate is in the right, and here’s why,” not “your side has been debunked”.Andrew Wakefield’s study purporting to prove that vaccines cause autism is a pretty good example. In 1994, two guys named Card and Krueger published a study showing the minimum wage had if anything positive effects on New Jersey restaurants, convincing many people that minimum wages were good.But you will notice that it had multiple failed replications, journals published reports showing he falsified data, the study’s co-authors retracted their support, the journal it was published in retracted it and issued an apology, the General Medical Council convicted Wakefield of sixteen counts of misconduct, and Wakefield was stripped of his medical license and barred from practicing medicine ever again in the UK. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? In 1996, two guys named Neumark and Wascher reanalyzed the New Jersey data using a different source and found that it showed the minimum wage had very bad effects on New Jersey restaurants.Many others have thoroughly debunked this study.” (source) “I was under the impression that the original study done by Card and Krueger had been thoroughly debunked by Michigan State University economist David Neumark and William Wascher” (source) “The study … Second of all, some studies that don’t quite meet Wakefield-level of awfulness are indeed really bad and need refuting.by Card and Krueger has been debunked by several different people several different times. I don’t think this is beyond the intellectual capacities of most people.A new report on sexual assault released today by the U. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault.In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data.And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.The article compares the older Campus Sexual Assault Survey (which found 14-20% of women were raped since entering college) to the just-released National Crime Victmization Survey (which found that 0.6% of female college students are raped per year).But I can’t get too mad at them yet, because that’s still a pretty big discrepancy.However, faced with this discrepancy a reasonable person might say “Hmm, we have two different studies that say two different things. My last essay, Beware The Man Of One Study, noted that one thing partisans do to justify their bias is selectively acknowledge studies from only one side of a complicated literature.