Lott / Bellesiles

[IJ]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078084/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/lott.asp

Bellesiles, but not the Lott stuff, so far discussed on the forums to my knowledge. what do people think?

[Kevin Mackie]

As with any scientific research, verification of the results by another researcher should be standard procedure to prove the validity of the hypothesis.

Based on the links you've posted Ian, Lott's credibilty should indeed be questioned, but not by his critics throwing in a red herring that he's posted rave reviews for himself and his works under a ficticious name. That suggests he's an idiot, not a liar.

As he's apparently a professional, (based on his credentials), he should hold himself to professional standards and have backup and confirmation for every statistic he publishes.

[Panther]

Lott has been peer-reviewed... with comfirmation of his results.

Sometimes one needs to "consider the source" when reading "rebuttals". IOW, using those who have been proven to be dishonest in their information, have an un-American anti-gun agenda, and have the very foundations of their organizations crumble if Lott is true are not very good people to believe when it comes to their opinions on the extensive research that should put them out of business.

The "Brady Campaign" should be shut down...

[RACastanet]

John Lott challenged the Washington Post to print his rebuttle, and much to my surprise they did. Be certain to read it IJ. When Belisiles was challenged he made many excuses which ultimately were proven to be falsehoods. I do not personally approve of Lott's internet alter ego (though he apparently had good reason) but his assertions are still built on sound data. Here is the article...



The Crash That Killed My Data


E-Mail This Article

Printer-Friendly Version

Subscribe to The Post





Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A15


Eight academics at eight different universities have informed me that they have written to your paper in response to two recent attacks on me and my research. But your paper has chosen not to publish the letters, not even one from an academic who wanted to correct a statement attributed to him that was the opposite of what he had written.

A Feb. 11 Federal Page article questioned the existence of a 1997 survey that was used to "support claims in [my] provocative book." My discussion of the survey actually involved only one number in one sentence, and even then I qualified my statement by beginning that sentence: "If a national survey that I conducted is correct." In any case, despite my past willingness to talk to your reporters, no one at your paper asked me about my survey. The bottom line is that I lost data for most of my various research projects, as well as the files for my book "More Guns, Less Crime," in a computer crash in July 1997. With the help of other scholars, primarily David Mustard at the University of Georgia, the massive data sets using county and state level crime data were reconstructed so the data could be given to academics who requested it. This enabled researchers at dozens of universities to re-estimate every single regression in my book. I redid the survey last year and obtained similar results. (Academics have confirmed my hard-disk crash as well as discussions that I had back in 1996 and 1997 regarding the survey, and there is also verification by a participant in the survey.)

This data set and all the other data used in my new book, "The Bias Against Guns," have also been made available to anyone who requests them at www.johnlott.org.

As to the claim, raised in a Feb. 1 Style article, that I used a fictitious identity in making posts in Internet chat rooms, I did indeed do that. I originally used my own name but switched after receiving threatening and obnoxious telephone calls from other Internet posters.

-- John R. Lott Jr.

The writer is a resident scholar

at the American Enterprise Institute.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[IJ]

According to the other sources, Lott's arguments about the crash and the Mary Rosh stuff have evolved over time. That they've been polished by the time he writes in to a major newspaper doesn't surprise me. I honestly don't give a hoot if he authored 600 papers as Trixie so long as the stats are accurate. And whether or not he made up or lost this 98% study, there should be something out there about self defense use of guns. It should be easy enough to find multiple confirmatory surveys on how often and how they're used, by different researchers. Anyone know of them? And in mirror image to not caring if Mary Rosh or Trixie or Lott posts on the internet, I don't care if an argument comes from the Brady campaign or The Wiscosin Association of Dairy farmers if the info they correct is true. Does anyone have commentary on the critiques of the research--and not just this sentance about defensive use--as they are posed on the Brady site and elsewhere?

[Panther]

In many areas, on many subjects...

No matter how much evidence for one side and against another is presented... There are those that will not change their minds and will look for excuses to malign the opposition...

[IJ]

Of course the whole "make up your mind and then seek evidence" business isn't limited to one side, and it would be either a potshot at those who don't parrot the party line on the forums if one were to imply it was only the "left" doing it--or a reason to abandon all discussion if it became a focus of a discussion on both sides. Meanwhile I don't own a gun nor fear having one get taken away; I'm not opposed to my owning, and I support ownership rights. So I think I'm somewhere in the middle and to the side because this isn't a major issue for me, and I feel like I'm happy to believe Lott if what I see supports his claims--I've got little invested in this. Can you provide some links so we can make up our own minds about this stuff based on what is written?

[Panther]

Ian,

My last post appears to be directed at you, but it wasn't. Let me explain...

I've watched the various "demonstrations" for & against the war on TV. We've both seen the various machinations by those on both sides of a number of issues (guns is one, but there have been others on these forums) and I rarely see much change in opinion from those who are entrenched in a belief.

You (more than most) are fairly open-minded on many issues and I have seen you admittedly vary positions with varying evidence. Very commendable. (But I do wish you would just believe what I want you to. )

Anyway, with all of the divisiveness over all manner of issues that I've witnessed lately and watching those on both sides entrench themselves... and seeing both emotion and emotional hi-jacking... and then seeing the examples/counter-examples from both sides of this issue as previously linked...

I wrote my last post. I know that it appears aimed squarely at you, and for that, please accept my apology. I should have been more careful and explained where my thoughts were coming from.

I don't have any links right now. Hopefully others will post links. I do know that Mustard, Kopel, Kleck and others have done research in the area and corroborated Lott's findings.

Take care and be good to yourselves...

And Ian... Please try to get some "down-time" over at the hospital. Those hours are a killer and you can't save others if you're killing yourself... Take care...

[IJ]

I thought it was directed at me, but I've weathered and dished out far worse, so no need to apologize. As for the work hours, they aren't so bad and they're getting better. We are sometimes up >24 hours in the ICU but most of us are on the floor and someone helps cover the night so we can sleep. So a 36 hour shift can become a 16, a nap, and 8-10 the next day. Next year mandatory 80hr workweeks take effect, but will be a bit of creative accounting mixed in with true improvements.

I bet we all can think of some americans working under more stressful conditions with no guarantee of any rest, so we can all think of a way to roll with the punches.