“How does one argue against “personal experience”? “
You’re missing the point. Having had graduate level classes in statistics, my point is that the data I have accumulated through my personal experience over a very long period of time constitutes statistically signficant evidence that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than are whites. Granted I can’t provide you with a data set to demonstrate that.
“You mention black incarceration rates. How does that personally effect you?”
Of course It doesn’t personally affect me. What it does do is affect the state of my knowledge, knowledge that I would be a fool not to act on in the absence of specific information.
“I’d prefer to note that every day, almost every white person in America is NOT beat up, assaulted, or in any way inconvenienced by a minority.”
Now THAT would be a classic example of a misuse of statistics. Can you identify the name of the fallacy of your statement?
“So when Derb argues that you shouldn’t try to be a good samaritan to a minority, and offers as “proof” a single story where a 3rd-party trying to stop a guy from beating up his girlfriend is attacked (something that clearly would happen no matter what the race of the attacker), that is a harmful use of “statistics”.”
It is fairly common to provide an illustrative example when outlining an argument for which you also provide statistical evidence. Which is exactly what Derbyshire did in this case. Try to be just a little more intellectually honest with your comments.
You are also more likely to get killed by lightning on a golf course than on a ski trip.
But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t play golf. And someone who argued that you should ski, but never play golf, and cited as “evidence” a story about a person getting killed by lightning on a golf course, would be making the same fallacious argument of “statistics” that Derb makes.
How does knowing that more blacks commit crimes than whites change your “action” when confronted with a random black person? Do you assume that the black guy who just got out of his car at the rest stop is likely to kill you or rob you? And would you feel that “knowledge” would give you the right to act pre-emptively to protect yourself? My point is that this is a harmful argument — one that makes people more likely to act improperly, out of fear, because of some false statistical “choice”.
I’m not arguing that you should ignore common sense. But beyond that, your failure to address the issue of Derb’s argument by anecdote, and suggestion that this is actually a valid logical argument which I dismiss out of some “dishonesty” doesn’t lend itself to a logical response, or engender much interest in discussing further.
And why don’t you tell me what “fallacy” you think I have invoked by pointing out that doubling the chance of something highly unlikely to happen still leaves it unlikely to happen.