Glenn Reynolds comments on the Ayres and Donohue's letter on the coding errors.
Reynolds also states that he is reluctant to believe charges of dishonesty against Lott because some critics have made ad hominem charges against him, for example, that his research was funded by ammunition manufacturers. However, his academic critics never made such charges. I specifically noted that the funded-by-ammunition-manufacturers charge was an ad hominem as recently as a few days ago and wrote generally about other unfair attacks on Lott years ago.
More like this
Lott's 6/13/03 entry on his blog links to a letter from David Mayer printed in the Columbus Dispatch replying to a letter from Donohue. Mayer asserts:
The recent letter by Stanford law professor John Donohue (June 7) nicely illustrates the propensity of gun-control advocates to play…
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…
Lott has a new posting where he responds to a letter from John Donohue to the Columbus Dispatch replying to a Lott op-ed. I earlier posted a link to the op-ed and a letter from Michael Maltz replying to it.
I'll post more on Lott's comments later, but for now I want to point to the most…
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…