G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.video.xbox,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)
"seems to me" <asdlf@alkjfd.com> wrote:
> You're guessing, and you're wrong. Read some of the literature
> that is based on data. John Lott's books are good examples in
> particular.
Sorry, but no, Lott's books are not particularly good examples.
The recently released NAS Firearms and Violence study shows just how poor of an idea it is
to use Lott's data. It did an extensive evaluation of John Lott's work and found that it doesn't
hold up.
On page 304 of the NAS Firearms and Violence study, Joel Horowitz writes, "In Lott and
Mustard (1997) and Lott (2000), the instruments include levels and changes in levels of crime
rates and are, by definition, correlated with the dependent variables of the models. Thus, they
are unlikely to be valid instruments. It is likely, therefore, that Lott's and Mustard's 2SLS
estimates are artifacts of the use of invalid instruments and other forms of specification errors."
Then there's Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science - "What he did was to construct a false
identity for a scholar, whom he then deployed in repeated support of his positions and in
repeated attacks on his opponents. In most circles, this goes down as fraud."
About John Lott's reputation, see
http://tinyurl.com/zcsk
http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
"seems to me" <asdlf@alkjfd.com> wrote:
> You're guessing, and you're wrong. Read some of the literature
> that is based on data. John Lott's books are good examples in
> particular.
Sorry, but no, Lott's books are not particularly good examples.
The recently released NAS Firearms and Violence study shows just how poor of an idea it is
to use Lott's data. It did an extensive evaluation of John Lott's work and found that it doesn't
hold up.
On page 304 of the NAS Firearms and Violence study, Joel Horowitz writes, "In Lott and
Mustard (1997) and Lott (2000), the instruments include levels and changes in levels of crime
rates and are, by definition, correlated with the dependent variables of the models. Thus, they
are unlikely to be valid instruments. It is likely, therefore, that Lott's and Mustard's 2SLS
estimates are artifacts of the use of invalid instruments and other forms of specification errors."
Then there's Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science - "What he did was to construct a false
identity for a scholar, whom he then deployed in repeated support of his positions and in
repeated attacks on his opponents. In most circles, this goes down as fraud."
About John Lott's reputation, see
http://tinyurl.com/zcsk
http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
http://tinyurl.com/zcsh