> What I was saying above is that I'm not aware of any methods that would work, and that I've spent quite a while looking for one.

> Same example: It's very unlikely that even if there is a reason "why" you and I exist, that we will ever learn the answer. To spend time on this problem looks like it's at best wasteful, and at worst results in insanity or cult formation.

History! Research! That's the best we can do, but there are entire disciplines devoted to trying to understand.

I would rather that humankind as a species is enlightened enough to try to understand the universe, past and future and present, and to consider that 'why' and 'how' is a more important question then, I don't know, appeasing some shareholders.

It sounds like you're interested in highly deterministic ideas of why, and any form of inaccuracy is unacceptable, so to find highly accurate 'proofs' for 'why' something happened in such a highly complex system as "the world" is nearly impossible. Better not to try.

It's difficult, yes, because there are no clear answers. But part of many things is about making decisions without clear answers, or clear reasons. Does it sound like madness? Sure, from the point of view of statistics or pure models. But in the field, in situ, improvisation and heuristics and 'best-guess' progress is currently what we have.

> I also really don't see what stop and frisk has to do with black crime statistics mentioned above...

Stop and frisk is racial profiling. Racial profiling is based upon prejudices or statistics about crime based on race. Please do a little bit of research. There's a reason why it was ruled unconstitutional in New York City.[1]

--

At the end of the day, I think that approaches like yours are dangerous because the choices you make will unwittingly map onto the choices that others have made, previously. What seems like an independent decision with independent analysis actually is an amplifier of others' existing decisions. I am suggesting that asking "why" is the only way we can have independent and clear thinking.

Take for example 'turning high crime areas into required screening areas' that "doesn't sound insane" to you.

On the surface, it might make sense. Dangerous areas should be segregated. That way we can lower the danger. Diagnose the symptom and stop it.

However, if you understood the impact of ghettos, the impact of prisons (which is a form of segregation through spatial/societal exile), and the history of racial segregation through financial policies like redlining[2], you'd understand that you'd be setting a policy that was the exact same reason why these high crime areas happened in the first place. You'd be amplifying a feedback loop.

The only way to understand is to do some research and understand what the major factors for crime are. Is it a lack of jobs? A drug-trade fueled underground economy? A lack of education? A lack of strong familial/social structures? What improvement would have the biggest impact in the area?

Are these analyses trying to understand 'why' going to be rock-solid 100% verifiable? No. Is the symptom 100% verifiable? Yes. Despite that, it makes sense to at least TRY to understand the cause.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_Cit...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-raci...