One more quote from yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education article:
Mr. Lott also points out that because the claim of coding errors appears in a law review, it has not been subject to review by third-party scholars, as would have been the case in a peer-reviewed economics journal.
It has been weeks since Lott saw the claim of coding errors. It would have taken him a few minutes to check for the existence of the errors and not much longer to see if correcting the errors reverses his results as Ayres and Donohue claim. He must know full well whether or not the claim is true. So, who cares if the claim has been reviewed by third-party scholars? It's been reviewed by Lott. Does he concede the claim or is he going to deny it?
More like this
Chris Lawrence defends Lott against the charge Wyeth made yesterday. James Joyner also comments.
Lawrence is correct when he points out that Lott's claims about Baghdad murders are not lies unless Lott knows them to be false, and, in the absence of reliable data we don't know…
Science has printed a letter from Lott (subscription required) responding to Science's editorial suggesting that the AEI should deal with Lott the same way that Emory dealt with Bellesiles:
Donald Kennedy's editorial "Research fraud and public policy" (18 April, p. 393) alleges that I made up a…
Lawrence VanDyke has left a comment below, which I would like to bring up here to address in more detail. Lawrence wrote:
I left out the "in support of ID" because I assumed that much was obvious in context. You make it sound like I was trying to make Leiter say ID proponents haven't published any…
Lott has a new posting where he has some more about the important matter of the coding errors in his data. Sandwiched between some more complaints about unfair the Stanford Law Review has been and some imaginary errors in Ayres and Donohue, we have:
Of course, this is nothing new with…