Comments on: Fake, Mistake, Replicate

By: J Morgan

J Morgan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:21:39 +0000

Michael Shermer states above: >>According to Levitt, children born into impoverished and adverse environments are more likely to land in jail as adults.<< It has been quite awhile since I read Levitt’s FREAKONOMICS, but this claim does not jive with my recollection. I understood that the abortion of UNWANTED children, without reference or correlation to income, marital status, education, class, or anything else, was the most significant and measurable factor identified by Levitt as the probable cause for the decline in crime in the 1990s. Is Mr. Shermer assuming that those or the majority of those electing an abortion were (are) poor or live in adverse environments, or did Mr. Levitt actually show this? Please clarify.

By: David R Tribble

David R Tribble — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:32:37 +0000

I think Lott and Levitt both have valid, but different, points, and it’s a shame that they are fighting amongst themselves. Remember that both men have been vilified in the mainstream media for their views.

By: Michael A Thompson

Michael A Thompson — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:14:53 +0000

I agree with the argument that we should try to keep the law out of science but I will have to say that guns DO reduce crime. To say otherwise is clearly unscientific. One has to simply look at the DOJ’s own statistics to show this statement true. Here is a more entertaining link to a report that refers to the DOJ’s report along with others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA&feature=related

By: Stu

Stu — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:51:23 +0000

Lott’s research is some of the most picked-apart, both loved and reviled depending on what side of the political spectrum one lies. Yet serious peer-review seems to back-up his figures, and they’re the ones, along with Kleck & Mustard’s, that are used by law enforcement. This is no different than any other scientific question; science eats its own young. If there are shortcomings to any hypothesis, they WILL be found out. Having examined Lott’s data myself, I would truly be impressed if the abortion hypothesis produces as uniform results.

By: John

John — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:46:29 +0000

When I was a grad student, the academic left was working hard to cast the scientific enterprise as a mere social construct – my adviser’s response was to urge us to bear in mind that *people* do science. Is there politics in science? Sure. Is there deception? Undoubtedly. Is this a problem? Not as much as you might think – erroneous results are often published (whether they be honest or not) but the self-correcting nature of science eventually ferrets these out.

Lott is suffering from being on the short end of the scientific stick and he is taking desperate measures. If he could have won in the scientific ‘court of his peers’ he would – but he has already lost there. So he’s going to a civil court to be judged by non-experts.

Perhaps this is a good thing: I find it highly unlikely that an American court would rule that criticizing a scientist’s results is grounds for a defamation of character suit. I hope the court has the judgment to counsel scientists (and other academics) to stick with their established systems of resolving these matters.

By: Ian WIlson

Ian WIlson — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:35:35 +0000

Much of the disputation in science seems to be the result of a lack of patience and a surplus of short term self interest. Assertiion that some method or conclusion may be iffy may be taken as an affront. But the goal is to find reliably observed conclusions… aka truth… aka observable. Careers are not what science is after. They may be handy in the short run. But in the end it is the confirming observations that build science.
Patience, perspective beyond the moment, and keeping the long term goal in focus would probably remove adversarial actions from the pursuit of truth where the leading edge of science is cloudy. Hypothesis is science on the floor for discussion. Even the tried and tested may be found wanting.
Let’s not take the joy out of science.
Justice is not served well by the courts. Why would science be any different?

By: Dr.Q

Dr.Q — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:59:05 +0000

sometimes somepeople confuse science.

By: Mike Anzis

Mike Anzis — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:57:07 +0000

It doesn’t seem that Lott is trying to “do science” with lawyers but rather to protect his reputation by refuting an implication of falsification. However, regarding the social issue, are we dealing here with the classic confusion between correlation and causality? Lott’s analysis shows correlation between right-to-carry laws and reduced crime; Levitt’s between abortion and reduced crime. Both are plausable causal factors, but wouldn’t it take a good deal of controlled social experimentation (probably impossible) to prove causality of either?

By: Chad Eldien

Chad Eldien — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:23:42 +0000

While J.P. McLaughlin’s credentials in the area of linguistic commentary are beyond reproach, I’d like to recommend Steven Pinker’s writing as a good reference for Mr. McLaughlin and others that may be interested in the meaning of ‘is’; particularly, “The Stuff of Thought.”

By: William L Fell

William L Fell — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:17:35 +0000

Interesting article because I am a gun carrier. But, more interesting to me was J.P. McLaughlin’s little note referencing Bill Clinton. When Clinton said what he did about ‘is’ he was not whining. What he said was quite profound and an intense study in philosophy and linguistics. Most,if not all but a few scholars,think the statement was humorous, but that was due to much ignorance.