Statistical reanalysis of The Troubles
Over the course of the past 2 years, myself and my fellow ISOT ‘admin’ have re-examined approximately 75-80% of all Troubles related deaths, those attributable to either Loyalist or republican armed groups.
Our objectives were relatively simple-
1: To ascertain who exactly both sets of ‘combatants’ regarded as being “legitimate targets“.
2: To calculate how many of the aforementioned “legitimate targets” each armed group actually killed.
3: To calculate, or in some instances estimate, how many “legitimate targets” were available over the course of the conflict.
4: To calculate, as a percentage, the total number of “legitimate targets” actually killed by each ‘side’.
At first glance, this seems a straightforward, if somewhat time consuming, task. In reality however, it is nowhere near as simple as it sounds. Take, for instance, the question of just who was regarded as a “legitimate target”. At first glance it seems easy to answer but it is, in fact, anything but.
Continue reading @ It's Still Only Thursday.
➽ Follow It's Still Only Thursday on Twitter @0nIyThursday
There were no "legitimate targets" of any sort in the Troubles. Just human beings who died for absolutely zilch.ReplyDelete
Yet again, it initially sounds interesting, but then factor in the known cognitive bias of at least one of the researchers and you end up with a dogs dinner.ReplyDelete
There are too many unknown variables. Plus if the 4 objectives do not actually indicate the overall objective of what the researchers are actually trying to achieve with their research?? For example, if: Objective 1: All Catholics were LTs; and Objective 2: the number of Catholics killed?; where Objective 3: is the number of Catholics available between the research window? and compute Objective 4: present the data collected in the previous objectives as a percentage. But to what end?? Let's say it was to determine how effective any group was -then that would require knowledge of how many members a group had --or what outside assistance it had.
The more selective a group is in defining legitimate targets then their percentage will be much higher, wheras, the more indiscriminate a group is over an even greater source of targets then the lower the percentage will be --I have a hunch that these loyalists, after tweaking unknown variables, may be interpreting lower percentage as a good thing?? But that is just a hunch.
This is like Cowboys saying Indians were legitimate targets.ReplyDelete
I for one can't see the need for this blatant attempt at revisionism.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately that is all we get -I read these articles in hope that they might say something new -that they might say something that makes me think; in the way that David Irvine could articulate the loyalist cause -Billy Hutchinson is good but just does not measure up -I don't hold it against him because I can see he has done his best to resolve issues -no better example than his attempts to resolve the Holy Cross debacle. Both men seemed to overcome the the unionist/loyalists dogma while remaining true to their core beliefs. Unionism/ Loyalism were the better for their progressive views but sadly they could not keep pace -particulalry after Irvines death.
Very true. Loyalism lost a huge voice when David passed.