The Eleventh Principle

Crime Opportunity Theory is wrong: Because it's (a) not about opportunities at all - only truisms (b) it's not a theory (c)   it does not explain causality (d) its just a description of the elements of a successful crime being committed - something that cannot exist in advance of itself happening, which means it cannot be an opportunity (e) that means its an irrefuatable truism, which means its pseudoscience.


The figure below  does not, as its originators claim, represent an opportunity. It's a Ratortunity because the event is over by this stage if the offender  is KNOWN to be more capable than the guardianship. As every dictionary definition will tell you, an opportunity exists before the event - not after it. And yet Crime Opportunity Theory tells us that ratortunity is not only a cause of crime, but the most important cause.

Spoof on Crime Science faith in ratortunity as a cause of crime reveals that many a true word is written in jest: visit the Crime Science blog: click here to check out the all important eleventh principle.

Pragmatism or Quackery?

• 
  

  Dysology

  TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF VERACITY THROUGH REVEALING MYTHS AND FALLACIES AND UNDERSTANDING REASONS FOR BAD SCHOLARSHIP, WEIRD BELIEFS AND STRANGELY UNEXPLORED AREAS OF RESEARCH

Opening topic:

Pragmatic quackery or a rational way to proceeed?

When practitioners in any field – be it economics, ‘self-improvement’, medicine, nutrition, policing or crime reduction say that they are less concerned with problems with the theory that underpins their practise than with the pragmatic need to tackle a particular problem in way that they ‘know’ is effective should our sceptical alarm bells start ringing?

Why Not Join the Dysology dscussion group at Linked[in} today: http://www.linkedin.com/groupsDirectory?results=&sik=1335182640833

 

Should individual scientists care about this? What about religious leaders? What about political leaders?

Research finds believers are less likely to believe in science. Really? OK once we've scored some cheap humor points with that finding it does raise one interesting question. Namely, how might science gain more respect among those who believe in unevidenced entities and who let their belief in those entities run aspects of their lives and thoughts?

There is a very useful debate among police, professors and students regarding my argument that ratortunity (the Routine Activities Theory) notion based upon the RAT crime triangle is a harmful  criminology and crime science myth because it cannot possibly be a cause of crime and is diverting our endeavors away from understanding crime causality in favour of over complicating truisms in order to dress them up as causal explanations. 


If you are not already a member of Linked[in] you will need to sign up to see it. The debate is among those in the American Society of Criminology group in Linked[in]. If you are a member and signed in to Linked[in] then the link to the debate is here.