Homosexual Gun Loons
Alpha Male
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>Okay. Do to Lott what was done to Bellsiles. It's been tried and tried and
>tried. THe anti gunners would give yo a ton of money if you could knock Lott
>off. Until the, you are just blowing smoke.
It might help if you'd tell me who, what, or where to find a
"bellsiles". I wouldn't "do" anything to John Lott besides reject him
for publication, which I did. The reason I had to do that is not
because I have a thing against guns. (Personally, I think you're just
paranoid.) John Lott's research design did not support his wild
claims. I can assure you that if anyone could actually show what Lott
claimed to have shown, any publisher of behavioral science material
would gladly kiss his ass in the University of Chicago student union
and give him 30 minutes to draw a crowd to publish it.
There are basic reasons why his conclusion is invalid. Are you aware
that the wholesale price of rum in Havana has a very strong
correlation with the salaries of protestant ministers in Boston over
the past 40 years? There simply exists no statistical tool that will
allow you to claim that one causes the other and that is EXACTLY what
John Lott did... obfuscated behind a statistical smoke screen, Maybe
his variables ARE related by cause/effect; however, he does not have
the experimental controls in his work to be able to claim that.
I don't want to get into an argument about guns here. I'll stipulate
that you're an expert and I have fired one once. I do know my APA
research designs and what I'm saying isn't a matter of my opinion
versus someone else's opinion. His stuff is only publishable if
someone pays to have it published.
Sorry. Please don't accuse me of wanting to take your guns.
!Jones
wrote:
>It might help if you'd tell me who, what, or where to find a
>"bellsiles".
Some history prof at Emory. I haven't read the document, but I hear
he said some things that upset the weapons industry. NRA has a
letter-writing campaign going or something. I really haven't paid
much attention to it.
The weapons lobby packs a lot of political and financial clout,
there's no doubt of that. There's quite a bit of money behind them.
Jones
Yardpilot
"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
news:0bb6suk8mmkd02d9b...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 13:18:28 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>
> >Okay. Do to Lott what was done to Bellsiles. It's been tried and tried
and
> >tried. THe anti gunners would give yo a ton of money if you could knock
Lott
> >off. Until the, you are just blowing smoke.
>
> It might help if you'd tell me who, what, or where to find a
> "bellsiles". I wouldn't "do" anything to John Lott besides reject him
> for publication, which I did. The reason I had to do that is not
> because I have a thing against guns. (Personally, I think you're just
> paranoid.) John Lott's research design did not support his wild
> claims.
If you could prove any such thing you could literally write your own ticket.
Alpha Male
wrote:
Does Lott have any publications besides op-ed stuff in the behavioral
science field? Any journal articles?
No?
Olin and Lott would really like to get published in the scholarly
behavioral science journals. He has no peer-reviewed work in that
field. In 1998, he presented a paper at the Hundred and Tenth Annual
Meeting of the American Economic Association titled: *Criminal
Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry Concealed
Handguns* and flagged "The Economics of Gun Control." The AEA rolled
their eyes and published it even though it didn't really have anything
to do with economics... and have asked for no subsequent papers from
Dr. Lott.
Besides slipping that into the proceedings of the AEA, (The American
Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 2) he has never had a peer-reviewed
piece on the topic of crime published in a behavioral science journal
that I know of. He's been published eight times in economics journals
and really ought to stay in his field because he obviously doesn't
know how to conduct research in the behavioral science field. (That
really shouldn't surprise anyone since he's an economist by training.)
He makes grandiose claims and gross errors that would gain any
graduate research assistant a deep sigh and roll of the eyes from a
professional.
Lott is to op-ed as Rush Limbaugh is to radio. He writes what people
want to hear. He's a prolific producer of newspaper editorials;
however, none of his gun-control stuff has *ever* made it past peer
review. There's a reason for that, you know. If his claims held
water, he'd be up for a Nobel... but the reviewers take one look at it
and shake their heads. To get into the journals, your work has to be
disciplined and rigorous; his current flame with gun control doesn't
cut muster. That's why Lott's work appears in no journals and don't
think he hasn't submitted it.
I don't know. Maybe we've all just missed him. The religious
scholars all missed Jesus... but He proved it by coming back from the
dead. Could I request that Lott's claims get by peer review just
once? That would *really* improve his credability,
Yardpilot
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:25:12 GMT, "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
> >news:0bb6suk8mmkd02d9b...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 13:18:28 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> >> <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Okay. Do to Lott what was done to Bellsiles. It's been tried and tried
> >and
> >> >tried. THe anti gunners would give yo a ton of money if you could
knock
> >Lott
> >> >off. Until the, you are just blowing smoke.
> >>
> >> It might help if you'd tell me who, what, or where to find a
> >> "bellsiles". I wouldn't "do" anything to John Lott besides reject him
> >> for publication, which I did. The reason I had to do that is not
> >> because I have a thing against guns. (Personally, I think you're just
> >> paranoid.) John Lott's research design did not support his wild
> >> claims.
> >
> >If you could prove any such thing you could literally write your own
ticket.
>
> Does Lott have any publications besides op-ed stuff in the behavioral
> science field? Any journal articles?
>
> No?
http://www.aei.org/scholars/lott.htm
http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm
>
> Olin and Lott
Have no connection that obligates him to them.
Devin Rosales
"Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:u9Xw9.48481$bt.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > Olin and Lott
>
> Have no connection that obligates him to them.
Oh, no. How long do we have to put up with this. It has been established
that Lott works for Olin. He's busted. They have no connection except that
Lott gets a paycheck at the end of the month only because he keeps Olin
happy. All they have to do is write him a pink slip if they don't like what
he does. Olin would rather that you didn't know that and spo wood lott.
Yall quit beatin that horse, it's dead if he takes there money then he HAS A
FUCKING CONNECTION. If he didn't want a connection then he shouldnt of
taken there money
That's just the way it is and all of your denials aren't gonna change a
thing. It wont do a BIT of good because I know that if you work for someone
then they can fire you
Bert Hyman
> "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:u9Xw9.48481$bt.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>> > Olin and Lott
>>
>> Have no connection that obligates him to them.
>
> Oh, no. How long do we have to put up with this. It has been established
Oh, humor us. Refresh our memories. Tell us how "Lott works for Olin".
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Christopher Morton
<dkr...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>"Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:u9Xw9.48481$bt.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>> > Olin and Lott
>>
>> Have no connection that obligates him to them.
>
>Oh, no. How long do we have to put up with this. It has been established
How long do you intend to lie?
Oh yeah, you're trying to protect rapists and violent White
supremacists.
Indefinitely.
---
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any word and
your cynical manipulation of my expression won't ever make me a racist
or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." - Lee Harrison (lha...@amaonlon.com)
Yardpilot
"Devin Rosales" <dkr...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:aq1mh...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:u9Xw9.48481$bt.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > Olin and Lott
> >
> > Have no connection that obligates him to them.
>
> Oh, no. How long do we have to put up with this. It has been established
> that Lott works for Olin.
No, it most definitely hasn't. If you could provide such proof, you wouldn't
have to keep saying, "You want fries with that?" at work.
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/olin.htm
Yardpilot
"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92BAB41366E...@209.98.13.60...
I imagine he is depending on this sort of thing:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/john_m_olin_foundation.htm
David Lentz
Established by whom and when? Cite a source.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Alpha Male
wrote:
>> Does Lott have any publications besides op-ed stuff in the behavioral
>> science field? Any journal articles?
>>
>> No?
>
>http://www.aei.org/scholars/lott.htm
Serious scholars of any scientific discipline have a duty to remain
constantly on guard against those who would hijack science to serve
some political party or purpose. All political organizations would
very much like to see their political position endorsed by a
scientific community... you have AEI, VPC, homosexual politics,
handicapped politics, and the list goes on. The fact of the matter
is, I know John Lott's publication resume without getting it from AEI.
Let's look at it, shall we?
Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?
John R. Lott, Jr., Lawrence W. Kenny
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, No. 6, Part 1. (Dec.,
1999), pp. 1163-1198.
Public Schooling, Indoctrination, and Totalitarianism
John R. Lott, Jr.
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, No. 6, Part 2: Symposium
on the Economic Analysis of Social Behavior in Honor of Gary S.
Becker. (Dec., 1999), pp. S127-S157.
(His only publication on the topic of behavioral science was a
proceedings paper at an American Economic Association meeting cited
below. I'm sure they were real happy to be hijacked for Lott's pet
political cause. You'll notice that this is his LAST mainstream
economics journal publication. *The Journal of Political Economy*
takes political papers but they're considered the fringe of scholarly
journals.)
Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry
Concealed Handguns (in The Economics of Gun Control)
Stephen G. Bronars, John R. Lott, Jr.
The American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings
of the Hundred and Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic
Association. (May, 1998), pp. 475-479.
Profiting from Induced Changes in Competitors' Market Values: The Case
of Entry and Entry Deterrence
Robert G. Hansen, John R. Lott, Jr.
Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 43, No. 3. (Sep., 1995), pp.
261-276.
Do Deficits Affect the Level of Insurance: Note (in Notes, Comments,
Replies)
Gertrud M. Fremling, John R. Lott, Jr.
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Nov., 1994),
pp. 934-940.
The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions:
Comment
Robert G. Hansen, John R. Lott, Jr.
The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 1. (Mar., 1991), pp.
347-361.
Licensing and Nontransferable Rents: Reply
John R. Lott, Jr.
The American Economic Review, Vol. 79, No. 4. (Sep., 1989), pp.
910-912.
Should the Wealthy Be Able to "Buy Justice"?
John R. Lott, Jr.
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95, No. 6. (Dec., 1987), pp.
1307-1316.
Licensing and Nontransferable Rents
John R. Lott, Jr.
The American Economic Review, Vol. 77, No. 3. (Jun., 1987), pp.
453-455.
And that's it. If you know of anything else he published in a
scientific journal, then now is the time to cite it. It's neither a
real bad nor especially good resume; however, there are no journals
related to psychology, sociology, or criminology that have carried his
work so he's never cut peer review in that area. If and when he ever
does, post it so we can all be duly impressed.
>http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm
Oh, that's rich! The Texas State Rifle Association? Ha! Look, pal,
I don't have a gun and I don't care whether you do or not. Do you
expect me to read TSRA's site? I don't want to get into a silly gun
argument!
>> Olin and Lott
>
>Have no connection that obligates him to them.
Again, researchers have to keep their independence and anyone who ever
accepts money from any source has an obligation. Or, perhaps, it
LOOKS like they do. Any social journal that took any of his work
would get Olin hung like an albatross around their neck. Lott is
asked about it every time he turns around and he'll be explaining it
forever even if there isn't a connection. (But it sure looks to me
like there is... or was.)
But he'll never be published in anything more rigorous than the op-ed
page of a newspaper until he starts doing real social research,
something for which he has never been trained. The reason he's not in
the journals of social science is because his "research" is amateurish
and simplistic. It's as simple as that.
Alpha Male
wrote:
>Established by whom and when? Cite a source.
(I'm going to change the title if nobody minds.)
It's good that you bring up that little issue of "established by
whom". In social science, we frequently have this idea of "science by
applause meter," where, if enough people agree that something is true,
then it tends to become canonized as a "fact." So, who pronounces
"fact-hood" and how many have to agree? Put another way: what does it
mean to "prove" something? When do I get to write QED, period, and
claim to have demonstrated something?
In order to approach this, let me first talk about something that
definitely does NOT constitute proof. You haven't proven a statement
or position to be true simply because nobody can (or does) show it
false. You contribute to social science by 1) completing a rigorous
field of study. The world is full of lay people expressing their
opinions and they have a right to them, but before I'll say that they
have advanced social science, they'll need the basic credentials to
show they know the field... i.e. a degree from an accredited
university.
2) Their work needs to be assessed by other professionals in the
field. This process is called "peer review".
3) Finally, the research has to meet the accepted standards of
mathematics and logic.
Now, let's take a long, hard look at John Lott:
As to specification #1... Education: John Lott's education is in
economics. He's certainly qualified to address economic issues;
however, he lacks any qualifications as a social scientist. Would you
go to him for a tooth filling because he can speak authoritatively
about the value of gold?
As to specification #2... Peer Review: None of Lott's wild claims
about guns and crime have ever been published in a peer reviewed
journal.
As to specification #3... Scientific Method: : The reason he has not
and will not get past peer review is because, in social science, you
can NOT establish the effect of a treatment by looking only at
history. If the researcher does not control for the independent
variable (and Lott did not), then the researcher cannot claim that
some treatment caused the observed delta in the dependent variable;
there are some claims one CAN make, but Lott flatly says that the
independent variable drives the delta in the dependent variable and
that isn't supported by the type of study he undertook. Had he taken
undergraduate training in sociology, he would have known this.
So, where does his position as the "Olin Fellow" fit into this? Well,
he received the Olin Fellowship and later that same year presented the
professional economics society with a gun control paper... "The
Economics of Gun Control". (He had never had a word to say about it
before that.) Then he started bombarding us with pseudo studies of
gun control issues, making astonishing claims about how guns were the
answer to all of our social ills, and pumping out op-ed pieces to that
effect for any newspaper who'll run them. The fact that Olin produces
gun-related products and that Lott suddenly became converted and
switched fields in his 50's immediately after receiving Olin money
tends to cause me to believe that the source of his paycheck might
have had something to do with his conversion.
Now, I have just done in my logic here exactly what John Lott did in
his study. I looked at the fact that he received money from industry
and that he subsequently became an outspoken advocate for that
industry. I concluded that the former caused the latter and I simply
don't know this is true... but it's certainly a possibility.
ThorII
Economics dear boy encompass's more than just financial theory.
It also take in the social sciences and human behavior as affected
by various stimuli. Economics is a study of cause and effect of
all areas that impact on social behavior.
>
>As to specification #2... Peer Review: None of Lott's wild claims
>about guns and crime have ever been published in a peer reviewed
>journal.
Unsubstantied opinion based on what you "personally" consider
peer review. Dr. Lotts work has been examined by better minds than
yours and his conclusions have been independently replicated.
The proof of a thing is in its ability to be replicated...this has been done.
The only people to try and discredit Dr. Lotts research has been done by cherry
picking data elements rather than taking the data as a whole. This is called an
entire population study and is judged to be the most accurate method of
forecasting and modeling.
>
>As to specification #3... Scientific Method: : The reason he has not
>and will not get past peer review is because, in social science, you
>can NOT establish the effect of a treatment by looking only at
>history. If the researcher does not control for the independent
>variable (and Lott did not), then the researcher cannot claim that
>some treatment caused the observed delta in the dependent variable;
>there are some claims one CAN make, but Lott flatly says that the
>independent variable drives the delta in the dependent variable and
>that isn't supported by the type of study he undertook. Had he taken
>undergraduate training in sociology, he would have known this.
Bullshit...Lott's conclusions have been examined by numerous scientists
and theorists and his data and methods have been found sound.
Where did you get your degree from...J.C. Penny?
>
>So, where does his position as the "Olin Fellow" fit into this? Well,
>he received the Olin Fellowship and later that same year presented the
>professional economics society with a gun control paper... "The
>Economics of Gun Control". (He had never had a word to say about it
>before that.) Then he started bombarding us with pseudo studies of
>gun control issues, making astonishing claims about how guns were the
>answer to all of our social ills, and pumping out op-ed pieces to that
>effect for any newspaper who'll run them. The fact that Olin produces
>gun-related products and that Lott suddenly became converted and
>switched fields in his 50's immediately after receiving Olin money
>tends to cause me to believe that the source of his paycheck might
>have had something to do with his conversion.
The Olin foundation is an entirely seperate entity from the Olin corporation
and has NO connection whatsoever except in name.
>
>Now, I have just done in my logic here exactly what John Lott did in
>his study. I looked at the fact that he received money from industry
>and that he subsequently became an outspoken advocate for that
>industry. I concluded that the former caused the latter and I simply
>don't know this is true... but it's certainly a possibility.
No you have used unsubstantied opinion and personal views to attempt to
deconstruct something which you do not understand.
There is not ONE verified fact in your entire load of horse manure.
I suggest you increase your dosage of medication.
next
James Mayer
> about guns and crime have ever been published in a peer reviewed
> journal.
>
> and will not get past peer review is because, in social science, you
> can NOT establish the effect of a treatment by looking only at
> history. If the researcher does not control for the independent
> variable (and Lott did not), then the researcher cannot claim that
> some treatment caused the observed delta in the dependent variable;
> there are some claims one CAN make, but Lott flatly says that the
> independent variable drives the delta in the dependent variable and
> that isn't supported by the type of study he undertook. Had he taken
> undergraduate training in sociology, he would have known this.
>
> he received the Olin Fellowship and later that same year presented the
> professional economics society with a gun control paper... "The
> Economics of Gun Control". (He had never had a word to say about it
> before that.) Then he started bombarding us with pseudo studies of
> gun control issues, making astonishing claims about how guns were the
> answer to all of our social ills, and pumping out op-ed pieces to that
> effect for any newspaper who'll run them. The fact that Olin produces
> gun-related products and that Lott suddenly became converted and
> switched fields in his 50's immediately after receiving Olin money
> tends to cause me to believe that the source of his paycheck might
> have had something to do with his conversion.
>
> his study. I looked at the fact that he received money from industry
> and that he subsequently became an outspoken advocate for that
> industry. I concluded that the former caused the latter and I simply
> don't know this is true... but it's certainly a possibility.
And like someone else that should know better, your rack
of research show that you don't know what you are talking about:
September 9, 1996:
An Insult to Our Foundation
As president of the John M. Olin Foundation, I take great umbrage
at Rep. Charles Schumer's scurrilous charge (Letters to the Editor,
Sept. 4) that our foundation underwrites bogus research to advance the
interests of companies that manufacture guns and ammunition. He asserts
(falsely) that the John M. Olin Foundation is "associated" with the Olin
Corp. and (falsely again) that the Olin Corp. is one of the nation's largest
gun manufacturers. Mr. Schumer then suggests on the basis of these
premises that Prof. John Lott's article on gun control legislation
(editorial page, Aug. 28) must have been fabricated because his research
fellowship at the University of Chicago was funded by the John M.
Olin Foundation.
This is an outrageous slander against our foundation, the Olin Corp.,
and the scholarly integrity of Prof. Lott. Mr. Schumer would have known
that his charges were false if he had taken a little time to check his facts
before rushing into print. Others have taken the trouble to do so. For example,
Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune looked into the charges
surrounding Mr. Lott's study, and published an informative story in the
Aug. 15 issue of that paper, which concluded that, in conducting his research,
Prof. Lott was not influenced either by the John M. Olin Foundation or by
the Olin Corp. Anyone wishing to comment on this controversy ought first
to consult Mr. Chapman's article and, more importantly, should follow his
example of sifting the facts before reaching a conclusion.
For readers of the Journal, here are the key facts:
The John M. Olin Foundation, of which I have been president for nearly
20 years, is an independent foundation whose purpose is to support individuals
and institutions working to strengthen the free enterprise system. We support
academic programs at the finest institutions in the nation, including the
University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, the University of
Virginia, and many others. We do not tell scholars what to write or what to say.
The foundation was created by the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin,
and is not associated with the Olin Corp. The Olin Corp. has never sought to
influence our deliberations. Our trustees have never taken into account the
corporate interests of the Olin Corp. or any other company when reviewing
grant proposals. We are as independent of the Olin Corp. as the Ford Foundation
is of the Ford Motor Co.
The John M. Olin Foundation has supported for many years a program in
law and economics at the University of Chicago Law School. This program
is administered and directed by a committee of faculty members in the law
school. This committee, after reviewing many applications in a very
competitive process, awarded a research fellowship to Mr. Lott. We at the
foundation had no knowledge of who applied for these fellowships, nor did
we ever suggest that Mr. Lott should be awarded one of them. We did not
commission his study, nor, indeed, did we even know of it until last month,
when Mr. Lott presented his findings at a conference sponsored by a
Washington think tank.
As a general rule, criticism of research studies should be based on factual
grounds rather than on careless and irresponsible charges about the motives
of the researcher. Mr. Lott's study should be evaluated on its own merits
without imputing motives to him that do not exist. I urge Mr. Schumer to
check his facts more carefully in the future.
Finally, it was incorrectly reported in the Journal (Sept. 5) that the John
M. Olin Foundation is "headed by members of the family that founded the
Olin Corp." This is untrue. The trustees and officers of the foundation have
been selected by virtue of their devotion to John Olin's principles, not by
virtue of family connections. Of our seven board members, only one is a
member of the Olin family. None of our officers is a member of the Olin
family--neither myself as president, nor our secretary-treasurer, nor our
executive director.
William E. Simon
President
John M. Olin Foundation Inc.
New York
(end)
James Mayer
One that has been proven not to exist:
Woodard R. Springstube
However, Lott is a trained econometrician. If you want to
know how to apply statistical analysis to social science data,
then go the the econometricians, since they have gone much
further with the application of statistical methods to social
science data.
As for his lack of qualifications as a social scientist, all I
can say is to ask, just what the hell do you think that
economics is, if not a social science? The definition of
economics is that _social science_ that studies the way
individual economic agents and societies, in the aggregate,
allocate scarce resources to unlimited wants.
By the way, if Economics is not a social science, then you
need to tell the ASSA to throw the AEA and the AFA out of the
organization.
>
> As to specification #2... Peer Review: None of Lott's wild
> claims about guns and crime have ever been published in a
> peer reviewed journal.
However, he has made his data available to many other
researchers, unlike most of his so-called debunkers. Besides,
peer review is not a guarantee of accuracy, witness
Bellesiles' 1996 article, based on work that has since been
thoroughly discredited by a committee of his peers. The pdf
file of their report is available on Emory University's
website.
Given the effort expended on debunking Lott's work, there has
been very little accomplished along those lines.
>
> As to specification #3... Scientific Method: : The reason
> he has not and will not get past peer review is because, in
> social science, you can NOT establish the effect of a
> treatment by looking only at history. If the researcher
> does not control for the independent variable (and Lott did
> not), then the researcher cannot claim that some treatment
> caused the observed delta in the dependent variable; there
> are some claims one CAN make, but Lott flatly says that the
> independent variable drives the delta in the dependent
> variable and that isn't supported by the type of study he
> undertook. Had he taken undergraduate training in
> sociology, he would have known this.
However, much of social science has to utilize historical
data, since experimentation is impossible. I suspect that you
are using an extremely restricted definition of social
science, not a definition that most social scientists would
accept. When dealing with archival data, one controls for
other variables by including them in the econometric model to
see if they have a statistically significant effect.
>
> So, where does his position as the "Olin Fellow" fit into
> this? Well, he received the Olin Fellowship and later that
> same year presented the professional economics society with
> a gun control paper... "The Economics of Gun Control". (He
> had never had a word to say about it before that.) Then he
> started bombarding us with pseudo studies of gun control
> issues, making astonishing claims about how guns were the
> answer to all of our social ills, and pumping out op-ed
> pieces to that effect for any newspaper who'll run them.
> The fact that Olin produces gun-related products and that
> Lott suddenly became converted and switched fields in his
> 50's immediately after receiving Olin money tends to cause
> me to believe that the source of his paycheck might have
> had something to do with his conversion.
>
> Now, I have just done in my logic here exactly what John
> Lott did in his study. I looked at the fact that he
> received money from industry and that he subsequently
> became an outspoken advocate for that industry. I
> concluded that the former caused the latter and I simply
> don't know this is true... but it's certainly a
> possibility.
>
Just another lying liberal, blowing smoke and hoping that it
will confuse the issue.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:31vasu0nh9o8t73qd...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 12:50:28 -0600, Alpha Male
> <fee...@faddle.com> wrote:
>
> Where did you get your degree from...J.C. Penny?
>
J.C. Penney is more discriminating than that. I suspect that
his degree came from a Cracker Jacks box.
David Lentz
Alpha Male wrote:
<snip>
> So, where does his position as the "Olin Fellow" fit into this? Well,
> he received the Olin Fellowship and later that same year presented the
> professional economics society with a gun control paper... "The
> Economics of Gun Control". (He had never had a word to say about it
> before that.) Then he started bombarding us with pseudo studies of
> gun control issues, making astonishing claims about how guns were the
> answer to all of our social ills, and pumping out op-ed pieces to that
> effect for any newspaper who'll run them. The fact that Olin produces
> gun-related products and that Lott suddenly became converted and
> switched fields in his 50's immediately after receiving Olin money
> tends to cause me to believe that the source of his paycheck might
> have had something to do with his conversion.
>
> Now, I have just done in my logic here exactly what John Lott did in
> his study. I looked at the fact that he received money from industry
> and that he subsequently became an outspoken advocate for that
> industry. I concluded that the former caused the latter and I simply
> don't know this is true... but it's certainly a possibility.
John Lott did not work for the Olin Corporation, but rather he
filled a chair which was funded by the Olin Foundation. The Olin
Corporation and Olin Foundation have no legal connection.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Alpha Male
wrote:
>> So, where does his position as the "Olin Fellow" fit into this? Well,
Yes, thank you, I'm aware of that fact. I believe I said that I had
not shown any connection in my last paragraph. It just looks like
there is to some people.
How many times have you discussed John Lott? Now, how many times has
that issue been raised? I rest my case.
Alpha Male
>>As to specification #1... Education: John Lott's education is in
>>economics. He's certainly qualified to address economic issues;
>>however, he lacks any qualifications as a social scientist. Would you
>>go to him for a tooth filling because he can speak authoritatively
>>about the value of gold?
>
>Economics dear boy encompass's more than just financial theory.
If you're going to patronize me, then please do so without blatant
grammatical errors.
>It also take in the social sciences and human behavior as affected
>by various stimuli. Economics is a study of cause and effect of
>all areas that impact on social behavior.
Yes, I have heard that idea expressed. It usually goes that "since
<insert branch of science here> is universal to the human experience,
then it is a universal science." Is that what you're saying? The
problem here is that whenever something becomes *everything*, it soon
loses definition and becomes nothing. There are areas that cross
over, I'm sure; however, Lott's topic is way out of his field. He has
no training to do highly specialized social research. The two fields
do have their differences. (Do you think John Lott is the first
person to see those data?)
>>As to specification #2... Peer Review: None of Lott's wild claims
>>about guns and crime have ever been published in a peer reviewed
>>journal.
>
>Unsubstantied opinion based on what you "personally" consider
>peer review.
OK. That may be true. The publisher is usually knowledgable in the
field; however, he or she is a professional publisher, not a scientist
in that field. Before the article is published, it is sent to several
recognized experts in the field and they ask, "Is this quality,
scientific writing? Does it employ the scientific method?" If these
people (peers) agree, then it might be published in a journal. Your
nine best known peer reviewed journals in this field are: American
Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Journal of Black
Studies, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Sociology of Education, Sociometry, Contemporary Sociology,
Journal of Health and Human Behavior, Social Psychology, Social
Psychology Quarterly, Annual Review of Sociology, and Journal of
Educational Sociology
Lott has been published in none of the above and that is not a matter
of opinion. Where has he been published such that you want me to call
it "peer reviewed"? I may be willing to add others to my list;
however, they'll have to maintain rigorous standards. "USA Today" is
not a peer reviewed journal.
>Dr. Lotts work has been examined by better minds than
>yours and his conclusions have been independently replicated.
>
>The proof of a thing is in its ability to be replicated...this has been done.
Sure. It has been done by every lay person with a political agenda
for which they want to claim scientific endorsement. Remember that
foolishness can also be replicated and that's what you would have. If
the original study used an inappropriate quantitative method, then why
replicate it? Have any of these "replications" been published in the
scientific journals?
***YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT YOU CAN REDUCE CRIME BY 20% OVERNIGHT!***
Why is it that nobody appears to be listening? Why is the scientific
community responding with a big yawn? Fact: Data just like those have
been crunched and recrunched, analyzed four ways from sundry, and well
published in the '60s. It just isn't as simplistic as Lott's
conclusion.
>The only people to try and discredit Dr. Lotts research has been done by cherry
>picking data elements rather than taking the data as a whole. This is called an
>entire population study and is judged to be the most accurate method of
>forecasting and modeling.
His data are fine... I guess. Look at his claim: "The independent
variable drives a delta in the dependent variable." Am I correct?
Now, ask, "Is the independent variable under experimental control?"
If you answer that question "no", then he can't support the claim.
That's his problem. I'll worry about his data when he gets control of
that independent variable... and *that* puppy will be a bear to nail
down. Why do you think nobody has done it yet? Don't you think
anyone else is interested in reducing crime?
>>As to specification #3... Scientific Method: : The reason he has not
>>and will not get past peer review is because, in social science, you
>>can NOT establish the effect of a treatment by looking only at
>>history. If the researcher does not control for the independent
>>variable (and Lott did not), then the researcher cannot claim that
>>some treatment caused the observed delta in the dependent variable;
>>there are some claims one CAN make, but Lott flatly says that the
>>independent variable drives the delta in the dependent variable and
>>that isn't supported by the type of study he undertook. Had he taken
>>undergraduate training in sociology, he would have known this.
>
>
>Bullshit...Lott's conclusions have been examined by numerous scientists
>and theorists and his data and methods have been found sound.
Well, I have stated my points above. Have any of these renown
scientists published their findings?
>Where did you get your degree from...J.C. Penny?
I have no comment.
Morton Davis
No. Yu fucked it up. You have no basis for your "logic".
>I looked at the fact that he received money from industry
> and that he subsequently became an outspoken advocate for that
> industry.
Wrong.
>I concluded that the former caused the latter and I simply
> don't know this is true... but it's certainly a possibility.
NOPE. You are far from right. You are "the sun is cold" wrong.
-*MORT*-
Thor
I do...PLONK
Yardpilot
Yardpilot
> Again, researchers have to keep their independence and anyone who ever
> accepts money from any source has an obligation. Or, perhaps, it
> LOOKS like they do.
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/olin.htm
Alpha Male
>That's a bit much...like "tobacco doesn't cause cancer" scientists
>whose funding came from tobacco companies! Oh, no, there's no
>connection/influence between the source of the money and the
>recipient of the money! BWAWAWA!
That's an EXCELLENT example of a study with very similar design to
Lott's work. There are a great many parallels here. Note that, after
literally THOUSANDS of studies, we've just recently been able to make
a clear causal claim.
And, yes, the denial of influence is equally laughable.
Alpha Male
Heh heh heh... I'll bet my being wrong (with no support for your
statement... Just "wrong!") most likely has something to do with your
guns, am I right on that? You see black helicopters and men in
spandex ninja-suits sliding down ropes in the middle of the night to
take your GUNS if you even consider getting the independent variable
under experimental control... the dreaded "camel's nose under the
tent" and all of that stuff.
We had some posters once cross from the Gay groups. They claimed that
it had been proven that homosexuality was an inate trait of a person's
birth; they were full of citations and equally quick to start
screaming if anyone pointed out that, while it hasn't been rejected,
it certainly hasn't been proven, either. Anyone who suggested that
was immediately branded a "homophobic Gay-basher". Oh well.
All I can do is to state the preconditions for a causal assertion.
One precondition is having the independent variable (IV) under
experimental control. That's not a matter of my opinion; that's as
well established as gravity. Now, what was Lott's IV and did he
control for it?
Morton Davis
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 03:19:32 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
> >news:7snasug9hs1cgbg0t...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 02:05:52 GMT, David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Now, I have just done in my logic here exactly what John Lott did in
> >> his study.
> >
> >No. Yu fucked it up. You have no basis for your "logic".
> >
> > >I looked at the fact that he received money from industry
> >> and that he subsequently became an outspoken advocate for that
> >> industry.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> > >I concluded that the former caused the latter and I simply
> >> don't know this is true... but it's certainly a possibility.
> >
> >NOPE. You are far from right. You are "the sun is cold" wrong.
> >
> >-*MORT*-
>
> Heh heh heh... I'll bet my being wrong (with no support for your
> statement... Just "wrong!") most likely has something to do with your
> guns, am I right on that?
NOPE. On your failure to diminish Lott.
>You see black helicopters and men in
> spandex ninja-suits sliding down ropes in the middle of the night
NOPE. But your fellow lunatic, G. E. Erndt sees the "NRA's armed citizen
gurrillas" and NRA "cover agents" .
to
> take your GUNS if you even consider getting the independent variable
> under experimental control...
You are an IDIOT. Typical TROLL.
-*MORT*-
Mary Rosh
> "Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
> news:eglbsuguu43maql96...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 00:36:29 GMT, David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> So, where does his position as the "Olin Fellow" fit into this? Well,
> > >> he received the Olin Fellowship and later that same year presented the
> > >> professional economics society with a gun control paper... "The
> > >> Economics of Gun Control". (He had never had a word to say about it
> > >> before that.) Then he started bombarding us with pseudo studies of
> > >> gun control issues, making astonishing claims about how guns were the
> > >> answer to all of our social ills, and pumping out op-ed pieces to that
> > >> effect for any newspaper who'll run them. The fact that Olin produces
> > >> gun-related products and that Lott suddenly became converted and
> > >> switched fields in his 50's immediately after receiving Olin money
> > >> tends to cause me to believe that the source of his paycheck might
> > >> have had something to do with his conversion.
When I knew him in the early 1990s, he was in his early 30s. That
means that he was working on guns in his early to mid 30s. I also
don't think that you know how academia works. It takes several years
often to write a paper. The data gathered for this project was
massive, and had to be started years earlier.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:23fa92fe.02110...@posting.google.com:
> When I knew him in the early 1990s, he was in his early
> 30s. That means that he was working on guns in his early
> to mid 30s. I also don't think that you know how academia
> works. It takes several years often to write a paper. The
> data gathered for this project was massive, and had to be
> started years earlier.
>
Alpha Male has already proven that. He doesn't believe that
economics is a social science. My guess is that he is about a
3rd-year psychology student who can't understand how anything
could be a science without white rats and mazes.
Oh well, I suspect that someday the gun banners will get their
way, and then the tyranny (for our own good, of course) will
begin. I just don't trust professional do-gooders who think
that they know more about what is good for me than I do myself.
Woodard
Yardpilot
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 21:08:42 GMT, "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Does Lott have any publications besides op-ed stuff in the behavioral
> >> science field? Any journal articles?
> >>
> >> No?
> >
> >http://www.aei.org/scholars/lott.htm
>
> Serious scholars of any scientific discipline have a duty to remain
> constantly on guard against those who would hijack science to serve
> some political party or purpose.
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/olin.htm
Yardpilot
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/olin.htm
!Jones
wrote:
Apparently, he thinks that has some kind of semantic content.
http://www.moby_dick.org for information about whales.
See: "* on a beach" and "* chained to a tree"
But thank you for your insight in Lott, Alfie. I had always said that
all he has done is to have given his opinion... and there is
absolutely *nothing* wrong with his opinion. I support his right to
have an opinion and to state his opinion in writing.
But that's all it is... one shouldn't elevate opinions, *any* opinions
(except mine, of course), to science.
I guess we won't have to hear this "Lott's work is peer reviewed" any
more. Where did you pull up his professional writing resume, please?
Jones
Mary Rosh
You write "I wouldn't 'do' anything to John Lott besides reject him
for publication, which I did." Are you saying that you are an
academic and that you have actually referred a paper of Lott's that
was submitted to a journal? Was it a real academic journal? I have
some familiarity with journals. Which one was it and what piece of
his did you referee? Or am I just completely misinterpreting what you
are saying. Was it just for some type of nonacademic publication that
you rejected his piece for?
Alpha Male <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message news:<0bb6suk8mmkd02d9b...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 13:18:28 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>
> >Okay. Do to Lott what was done to Bellsiles. It's been tried and tried and
> >tried. THe anti gunners would give yo a ton of money if you could knock Lott
> >off. Until the, you are just blowing smoke.
>
> It might help if you'd tell me who, what, or where to find a
> "bellsiles". I wouldn't "do" anything to John Lott besides reject him
> for publication, which I did. The reason I had to do that is not
> because I have a thing against guns. (Personally, I think you're just
> paranoid.) John Lott's research design did not support his wild
> claims. I can assure you that if anyone could actually show what Lott
> claimed to have shown, any publisher of behavioral science material
> would gladly kiss his ass in the University of Chicago student union
> and give him 30 minutes to draw a crowd to publish it.
>
> There are basic reasons why his conclusion is invalid. Are you aware
> that the wholesale price of rum in Havana has a very strong
> correlation with the salaries of protestant ministers in Boston over
> the past 40 years? There simply exists no statistical tool that will
> allow you to claim that one causes the other and that is EXACTLY what
> John Lott did... obfuscated behind a statistical smoke screen, Maybe
> his variables ARE related by cause/effect; however, he does not have
> the experimental controls in his work to be able to claim that.
>
> I don't want to get into an argument about guns here. I'll stipulate
> that you're an expert and I have fired one once. I do know my APA
> research designs and what I'm saying isn't a matter of my opinion
> versus someone else's opinion. His stuff is only publishable if
> someone pays to have it published.
>
> Sorry. Please don't accuse me of wanting to take your guns.
A Voice of Reason
>You write "I wouldn't 'do' anything to John Lott besides reject him
>for publication, which I did." Are you saying that you are an
>academic and that you have actually referred a paper of Lott's that
>was submitted to a journal? Was it a real academic journal? I have
>some familiarity with journals. Which one was it and what piece of
>his did you referee? Or am I just completely misinterpreting what you
>are saying. Was it just for some type of nonacademic publication that
>you rejected his piece for?
On Usenet, one will always run into the "expert factor." On any
topic, someone will always claim some kind of inside information or
specific expert status regarding whatever the subject happens to be.
How does one evaluate these claims?
Therefore, I suggest that you evaluate only the content and disregard
any further claims of authority beyond that. I am familiar with Dr.
Lott's work. I have never met the man personally. I have no personal
ax to grind with him. I am uninterested in the gun control debate.
Does Olin funding invalidate Lott's work? No. If it did, then about
60% of the research would also be invalid for the same reason.
Corporate entities fund research every day at any public university.
IMHO, there exist some significant issues here, but nothing specific
to Lott.
Are his data valid? I don't know. They're in the public domain and
one could look at them and decide for one's self. I haven't looked at
them, so I have no comment. I'm going to assume that he's an ethical
person and that they are as he claims.
What caught my attention was a claim someone cross-posted about peer
review. Lott's gun control work has not been published in a peer
reviewed journal.
Does his method support his conclusion? IMHO, it does not. The
reason I believe that to be true is because his conclusion is that the
independent variable (IV) drives a delta in the dependent variable
(DV) and IV is not under experimental control, ergo, he cannot support
that statement regardless of how many regressions he does on the data.
John Lott is not the first person to look at crime data correlated
with guns; I'd be willing to bet that you can pull up hundreds of
them. Lott certainly made the wildest claim and, therefore, was
noticed by the unwashed masses who tend to want all of their beliefs
reduced to media bites and pre-processed URLs... and John Lott
certainly knows how to write a title that will get attention. He's an
op/ed writer with a Ph.D.
I read Rush Limbaugh. He gives his opinion. Is he funded by
corporate sponsors? Of course he is. Is his opinion valid? It's as
valid as the next guy's is. Is what he says supported by hard science
just because millions of "ditto-heads" like me happen to agree with
him? John Lott writes editorial pieces on gun control and quite a few
people agree with him. With that, I have no issue; he may well be
right.
All I'm saying is that his conclusion does not have the weight of
scientific fact. Based on what I've read here, I'd say that he
proposed a postulate. That's fine, I suppose. Planar geometry is
based on the unprovable parallel postulate so you're welcome to base
your beliefs on what you already believe if that's what floats your
boat.
But don't take my word for it. Look at his method. Identify the IV
and decide for yourself whether or not it was under experimental
control. If you agree with me that it was not, then it follows that
one cannot say that it *caused* the delta in the DV, From that, you
might support coincidence or correlation, but not causality. Had he
actually gotten that nailed, the journals would all be pissing
themselves wanting to publish it.
A Voice of Reason
wrote:
>I guess we won't have to hear this "Lott's work is peer reviewed" any
>more. Where did you pull up his professional writing resume, please?
They charge for access though and they're pretty darn pricey. Best
bet is to hit your public library if you want to run a JSTOR search.
It's a lot like ERIC but only searches scholarly journals. It has
links to all of the full text in PDF and that's a real time saver over
ERIC.
Yardpilot
"A Voice of Reason" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
news:q53esusilt6ugabk3...@4ax.com...
> What caught my attention was a claim someone cross-posted about peer
> review. Lott's gun control work has not been published in a peer
> reviewed journal.
His work has been exhaustively picked over by organizations, individuals,
experts, and academics of all kinds without a single one being able to
factually refute it. In fact, many who disagree with him speak highly of his
work.Your objection is baseless. If you actually COULD refute his work, you
would find yourself suddenly quite wealthy and in demand. Good luck.
!Jones
>>>Where did you get your degree from...J.C. Penny?
>>
>>I have no comment.
>
>I do...PLONK
That one didn't last very long, Alphie.
Jones
!Jones
wrote:
>
>"A Voice of Reason" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
>news:q53esusilt6ugabk3...@4ax.com...
>
>> What caught my attention was a claim someone cross-posted about peer
>> review. Lott's gun control work has not been published in a peer
>> reviewed journal.
>
>His work has been exhaustively picked over by organizations,
Indeed. The NRA for one. TSRA. In fact, every organization with
"rifle" in it's name has praised his writing.
> individuals,
Indeed it has. Mort, for example.
>experts,
It definitely has. *You* like it.
>and academics of all kinds without a single one being able to
>factually refute it. In fact, many who disagree with him speak highly of his
>work.Your objection is baseless.
I wonder if you'd mind citing one of these academic experts, please?
(Just one who is a recognized social researcher will be fine.) The
reason nobody can refute Lott is that he has never been "futed". The
claim has been made. He said, "Lott's gun control work has not been
published in a peer reviewed journal." I guess it's time for you to
crank up your old research machine and find one to stuff down his
throat... so let's see what you got.
Nail us with some of those citations, Yardbird!
(Sorry, the National Enquirer doesn't count as a peer reviewed
academic forum.)
Jones... who is starting to enjoy this.
Robert Frenchu
A pity all t.p.g. posts can't resemble this one.
Alpha Male
wrote:
>
>"A Voice of Reason" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
>news:q53esusilt6ugabk3...@4ax.com...
>
>> What caught my attention was a claim someone cross-posted about peer
>> review. Lott's gun control work has not been published in a peer
>> reviewed journal.
>
>His work has been exhaustively picked over by organizations, individuals,
>experts, and academics of all kinds without a single one being able to
>factually refute it. In fact, many who disagree with him speak highly of his
>work.Your objection is baseless. If you actually COULD refute his work, you
>would find yourself suddenly quite wealthy and in demand. Good luck.
>
Look, I'm saying (for about the tenth and last time) that he has not
gotten his gun control research published in the scientific journals.
I don't think that he has ever been cited as an authoritative source
in the journals, but that's easier to miss. If he has, then it
certainly supporte your argument.
Now, if you happen to think he has and that I just missed it, then
please feel free to fill in any details that I may have left out. You
know, drop an author's name, date of publication, title, name of
publication, volume, issue number, and pages. It would help if you
would summarize the document you're citing.
Really, sir! if you paste that link to the rifle association's web
page at me again, I'm going to wash my hands of you. Most Internet
resources are only authoritative so far as the position of the
organization they represent. It's an authoritative source of what the
rifle association's opinion is; however, their opinion isn't
authoritative. Internet research usually is to research is to
research as fast food is to food.
Morton Davis
"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
news:8sffsugp2kk5dleqc...@4ax.com...
What's the matter? Can't follow the links on the NRA pages? Can't use
Google? Would you be happy if the link was to the Brady Campaign or G. E.
Ernst's "institute"?
Many have attempted to debunk Lott, all have failed miserably. Unlike a
certain disgraced professor, Lott answers his critics with facts.
-*MORT*-
!Jones
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>What's the matter? Can't follow the links on the NRA pages?
That would give the reader insight as to the NRA's opinion. If one
followed these links, they would lead to other opinions with which the
NRA happens to agree.
>Can't use Google?
The various search engines will find web pages which will give the
reader all sorts of varying opinions.
>Would you be happy if the link was to the Brady Campaign or G. E.
>Ernst's "institute"?
Far be it from me to speak for another person, but I doubt it. Based
on what I read in the posting to which you write, the original author
is asking for a serious citation to a specific end. My guess is that
his generic use of the term "rifle association" would probably also
apply to Handgun Control Inc. since, similar to the NRA, they're just
another group with a political agenda.
All of these groups start from the basic premise that their political
position is the "right" one and all subsequent evidence presented will
be narrowly targeted on persuading the reader to adopt their position
on a political issue. None of these should be accepted by the
intelligent reader as having any scientific basis for their claims
because there was only one possible position for the data to
support... that's groovy for politics, but don't call it science.
Jones
Mary Rosh
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:51:02 GMT, "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Voice of Reason" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
> >news:q53esusilt6ugabk3...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> What caught my attention was a claim someone cross-posted about peer
> >> review. Lott's gun control work has not been published in a peer
> >> reviewed journal.
> >
> >His work has been exhaustively picked over by organizations,
>
> Indeed. The NRA for one. TSRA. In fact, every organization with
> "rifle" in it's name has praised his writing.
>
> > individuals,
>
> Indeed it has. Mort, for example.
>
> >experts,
>
> It definitely has. *You* like it.
>
> >and academics of all kinds without a single one being able to
> >factually refute it. In fact, many who disagree with him speak highly of his
> >work.Your objection is baseless.
>
> I wonder if you'd mind citing one of these academic experts, please?
> (Just one who is a recognized social researcher will be fine.) The
> reason nobody can refute Lott is that he has never been "futed". The
> claim has been made. He said, "Lott's gun control work has not been
> published in a peer reviewed journal." I guess it's time for you to
> crank up your old research machine and find one to stuff down his
> throat... so let's see what you got.
Here is an issue of the Journal of Law and Economics which has a
series of papers discussing the research.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/journal/contents/v44nS2.html
The seven papers that discuss concealed handgun laws all find a
benefit and no problems from the laws. More Guns, Less Crime gives
the citations for many other academic articles. That book is itself
refereed by the University of Chicago.
Mary Rosh
> On 4 Nov 2002 11:08:06 -0800, mary...@aol.com (Mary Rosh) wrote:
>
> >You write "I wouldn't 'do' anything to John Lott besides reject him
> >for publication, which I did." Are you saying that you are an
> >academic and that you have actually referred a paper of Lott's that
> >was submitted to a journal? Was it a real academic journal? I have
> >some familiarity with journals. Which one was it and what piece of
> >his did you referee? Or am I just completely misinterpreting what you
> >are saying. Was it just for some type of nonacademic publication that
> >you rejected his piece for?
>
> On Usenet, one will always run into the "expert factor." On any
> topic, someone will always claim some kind of inside information or
> specific expert status regarding whatever the subject happens to be.
> How does one evaluate these claims?
Fine, but Alpha Male makes some claims and if he is truly an expert, I
would like to know. I would give it some weight if he is an academic
at a University and if he is actually working in a social science
field that is related. It would be very helpful to have an academic
involved in the discussion, and I would like to know who he is.
Yardpilot
"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
news:8sffsugp2kk5dleqc...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:51:02 GMT, "Yardpilot" <Yard...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Voice of Reason" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
> >news:q53esusilt6ugabk3...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> What caught my attention was a claim someone cross-posted about peer
> >> review. Lott's gun control work has not been published in a peer
> >> reviewed journal.
> >
> >His work has been exhaustively picked over by organizations, individuals,
> >experts, and academics of all kinds without a single one being able to
> >factually refute it. In fact, many who disagree with him speak highly of
his
> >work.Your objection is baseless. If you actually COULD refute his work,
you
> >would find yourself suddenly quite wealthy and in demand. Good luck.
> >
>
> Look, I'm saying (for about the tenth and last time) that he has not
> gotten his gun control research published in the scientific journals.
And I am saying, for the umpteenth time, so what? For one thing, I don't
know that he hasn't had anything published in a scientific journal. For
another, his work has been exhaustively scrutinized by the very people that
deal with such peer review, and has been found to be quite robust. Many
rather strong critics have said that his work is excellent. He has even
provided information and other assistance to his critics. If you could
refute it, you would be in position to become quite famous and wealthy. Go
for it. I wish you all the success in the world.
Bill Campbell
It's that simple. Wimps hate guns and most wimps are gay.
"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
news:0bb6suk8mmkd02d9b...@4ax.com...
Yardpilot
"Mary Rosh" <mary...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:23fa92fe.0211...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for those. The "point" about whether or not Lott has been published
in peer reviewed journals is just the latest in their baseless attack on the
man rather than his work. We can note that Bellesiles and Kellerman were
both published in peer reviewed journals at various times, and their claims
on this issue have been thoroughly discredited.
Alpha Male
>A Voice of Reason <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message news:<q53esusilt6ugabk3...@4ax.com>...
>> On 4 Nov 2002 11:08:06 -0800, mary...@aol.com (Mary Rosh) wrote:
>>
>> >You write "I wouldn't 'do' anything to John Lott besides reject him
>> >for publication, which I did." Are you saying that you are an
>> >academic and that you have actually referred a paper of Lott's that
>> >was submitted to a journal? Was it a real academic journal? I have
>> >some familiarity with journals. Which one was it and what piece of
>> >his did you referee? Or am I just completely misinterpreting what you
>> >are saying. Was it just for some type of nonacademic publication that
>> >you rejected his piece for?
>>
>> On Usenet, one will always run into the "expert factor." On any
>> topic, someone will always claim some kind of inside information or
>> specific expert status regarding whatever the subject happens to be.
>> How does one evaluate these claims?
>
>Fine, but Alpha Male makes some claims and if he is truly an expert, I
>would like to know. I would give it some weight if he is an academic
>at a University and if he is actually working in a social science
>field that is related. It would be very helpful to have an academic
>involved in the discussion, and I would like to know who he is.
Other family members use this machine and I accidentally posted the
wrong identifying moniker. I wrote the message to which you reply.
I decline to give personal information, Let the record reflect that
my postings carry exactly the same authority as anyone else's postings
do. They stand or fall on their content alone.
Alpha Male
>> The seven papers that discuss concealed handgun laws all find a
>> benefit and no problems from the laws. More Guns, Less Crime gives
>> the citations for many other academic articles. That book is itself
>> refereed by the University of Chicago.
For some reason, the original isn't on my server. I don't think that
something is scholarly writing just because it is published by the
University of Chicago Press. If I'm affiliated with the University
and willing to pay for it, couldn't I publish this missive?
Alpha Male
wrote:
I am not familiar with Kellerman. I did look up the Emory chap,
Bellesiles. The issue there was completely different. If anyone says
Lott falsified data then they need to put up or shut up. For a
researcher, that's a fairly serious charge. That goes to intellectual
honesty.
I do not wish to diminish Lott. The fact is that you have inflated
his work beyond what ir really is. You can't say, "Lott proved that
guns reduce crime. QED." That's John Lott's opinion and I can not
prove it to be false... nor do I have the slightest interest in doing
so. Debating Lott would be like debating with Geraldo. While they
differ politically, they both use the secular media to push an
agendum... and that's fine as long as you don't claim it's science.
Alpha Male
wrote:
>That would give the reader insight as to the NRA's opinion. If one
>followed these links, they would lead to other opinions with which the
>NRA happens to agree.
Exactly. And nobody is attacking the NRA. They're a political
organization, not a source for scientific discourse. An NRA
endorsement doesn't make it science.
Mary Rosh
You should be able to at least comment on the note below that I have
put up before, or are you saying that someone else in your family is
an academic who refereed his work?
To Alpha Male:
You write "I wouldn't 'do' anything to John Lott besides reject him
for publication, which I did." Are you saying that you are an
academic and that you have actually referred a paper of Lott's that
was submitted to a journal? Was it a real academic journal? I have
some familiarity with journals. Which one was it and what piece of
his did you referee? Or am I just completely misinterpreting what you
are saying. Was it just for some type of nonacademic publication that
you rejected his piece for?
M. Eglestone
>
> Exactly. And nobody is attacking the NRA. They're a political
> organization, not a source for scientific discourse. An NRA
> endorsement doesn't make it science.
Did anyone indicate otherwise?
--
- SMS Mike -
===============
Every time you vote to limit someone else's freedoms, "For the good
of the Community" you open the door just a little bit wider for those
who wish to limit YOUR freedoms.
Always keep one thing in mind, "What goes around, Comes around," and
the results do not often feel beneficial or pretty when the shoe is
placed on your own foot.
Alpha Male
>> I decline to give personal information, Let the record reflect that
>> my postings carry exactly the same authority as anyone else's postings
>> do. They stand or fall on their content alone.
>
>You should be able to at least comment on the note below that I have
>put up before, or are you saying that someone else in your family is
>an academic who refereed his work?
I'm saying that I choose not to comment on my personal details;
ability has nothing to do with my decision. If you believe that I
have claimed "expert" status, then allow me to apologize and to state
clearly that I am simply one of thousands of anonymous people giving
an opinion on Usenet.
Mary Rosh
Are you saying that he paid for his book to be published? Is that the
way that it normally works at Universities? I seriously question
that. A copy of his resume can be found at:
Alpha Male
>> If anyone says Lott falsified data then they need to put up or
>> shut up. For a researcher, that's a fairly serious charge.
>> That goes to intellectual honesty.
>
>For starters, he claimed stats from a "national survey."
>
>Not only did it turn out to be his own little survey,
>he "accidently" lost all his source data for it.
I thought he used numbers form the public domain. Personally,
crunching numbers is work for me; I have to smell a serious rat before
I'll chase p factors through the data and I simply don't see anything
wrong with Lott's work other than what is commonly called the "rooster
fallacy." (I.e. you shouldn't blame the rooster for the sunrise but
studies do that all of the time.)
Let me state right now that I do not see any academic dishonesty in
any of Lott's work. If I thought that there might be some (and if I
valued my credibility), I would make sure that I had compelling proof
before I spoke because the burden would immediately shift to me.
Falsification of data is a strong claim and should not be raised
frivolously.
What I said is that his conclusion(s) do not follow from his method.
In other words, I disagree with him. Oh, well. Quite a few people,
experts included, do... if you get three "experts" in a room, they'll
never agree on what time it is.
Lott, failing to cut muster in a scholarly forum, took his case to the
"secular" press and, therefore, should be seen as having more in
common with Limbaugh and Geraldo than with science. Your term "junk
science" is appropriate in that it's packaged for the masses as
"intellectual fast food" and sold in op-ed pages of USA Today.
You know, I'm not at all sure he isn't right. I *am* sure that what
he writes doesn't carry the weight of scientific proof.
Alpha Male
<sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Exactly. And nobody is attacking the NRA. They're a political
>> organization, not a source for scientific discourse. An NRA
>> endorsement doesn't make it science.
>-------------
>
> Did anyone indicate otherwise?
Yes; however, you did not. Some moron has been waving their web page
pretty prolifically throughout the thread but I don't really have an
issue with it.
Morton Davis
"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
news:m5njsucrt082e56j2...@4ax.com...
Lots of people take pot shots at Lott, but none have succeeded. There is
good science in what Lott has done, a lot better science that in the
frothing at the mouth 'science" put out by the Brady Campaign, VPC and their
ilk. If there is one thing that stands out about Lott and about CCW, it is
that CCW did not lead to the bloodbath predicted by the anti-gunners.
There us good evidence that the American public favors Lott's work over the
shrill voices of Sarah Brady and Bill Clinton in that 13 states have adopted
CCW laws since 1994 DESPITE the shrill screams of Sarah Brady, Bill Clinton
and the Milliom Mom March, Brady Campaign, VPC and other anti gun groups.
The anti gunners' message is one-note and strident and does not hold up
against reality.
-*MORT*-
Alpha Male
>> I don't think that
>> something is scholarly writing just because it is published by the
>> University of Chicago Press. If I'm affiliated with the University
>> and willing to pay for it, couldn't I publish this missive?
>
>Are you saying that he paid for his book to be published? Is that the
>way that it normally works at Universities? I seriously question
>that.
I'm reminded of my tenure in public school. A couple of my seniors
were being pills, so I jerked them into the office and I said, "You
guys are being real assholes today!" They kind of huffed and puffed,
then one asked, "So, what are you trying to say, man?"
What I'm saying is what I wrote.
In general, a "university press" is a publishing arm of a university.
There are a few for profit houses who pay for the name, but UCP is one
of the former. These are always non-profit and do publish
peer-reviewed journals; however, not all of their publishing is such.
Sometimes they bill and sometimes they don't depending on the
university policy. Unless ink and paper are free nowadays, somebody
pays to have it published. Their charter usually says something to
the effect that they will "maintain high academic standards," whatever
that means. An example of a peer-reviewed journal published by UCP is
The American Journal of Sociology. A number of other examples exist.
A university press may also publish texts for general readers; most of
the time, these will be seen as having some academic content or value
and John Lott's writing has academic value. He just didn't prove that
guns reduce crime, that's all.
Alpha Male
<oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>Lots of people take pot shots at Lott, but none have succeeded.
"Succeeded" as you use the term is a matter of opinion.
>There is
>good science in what Lott has done, a lot better science that in the
>frothing at the mouth 'science" put out by the Brady Campaign, VPC and their
>ilk. If there is one thing that stands out about Lott and about CCW, it is
>that CCW did not lead to the bloodbath predicted by the anti-gunners.
I'm not even remotely interested in arguing guns or the lack thereof.
>There us good evidence that the American public favors Lott's work
The American public favors cheeseburgers over broccoli casserole.
Don't try to base nutritional science on that, though. My whole point
is that Lott's argument it to the public and not to the behavioral
scientists. It's a political opinion and should be cited as such.
m...@me.net
wrote:
No, its a data driven statistically proven argument that can be
replicated by independent means...and he makes his data available to
anyone who wish's to use it.
No one has been able to refute it so far...in any way shape or form.
Instead they are reduced to calling it lies...propoganda...ect.
Just like this turkey...
Laugh....Laugh....Laugh...
!Jones
>>The American public favors cheeseburgers over broccoli casserole.
>>Don't try to base nutritional science on that, though. My whole point
>>is that Lott's argument it to the public and not to the behavioral
>>scientists. It's a political opinion and should be cited as such.
>
>No, its a data driven statistically proven argument that can be
>replicated by independent means...and he makes his data available to
>anyone who wish's to use it.
OK. Take your time and juat whenever you're *sure* you're ready, drop
a citation from a scientific journal that has published Lott's
writing.. Don't feel like you have to bang out a reply just as soon
as you read this. Like I say, take your time and study your reply
carefully. {Logic isn't your forte, is it?)
>No one has been able to refute it so far...in any way shape or form.
No one in the scientific community has even bothered with it, as far
as I can see. Why do you think he *proved* anything when no
scientific publication seems to think he did?
>Instead they are reduced to calling it lies...propoganda...ect.
>
>Just like this turkey...
I would point out that you didn't read very carefully. The person to
whom you reply has never even *hinted* that he even *might* call Lott
a liar.
Jones
Yardpilot
"Alpha Male" <fee...@faddle.com> wrote in message
news:h43isu8h7ho82c2a8...@4ax.com...
No I haven't.
> You can't say, "Lott proved that
> guns reduce crime. QED." That's John Lott's opinion and I can not
> prove it to be false... nor do I have the slightest interest in doing
> so. Debating Lott would be like debating with Geraldo. While they
> differ politically, they both use the secular media to push an
> agendum... and that's fine as long as you don't claim it's science.
Lott did a very comprehensive job of dealing with a difficult subject. You
OPINION is that his work is not "scientific" or accurate in result. His
conclusions are backed by his work. They are not simply his opinion.