Randy Barnett adds his voice to those calling for the American Enterprise Institute to conduct an investigation into Lott's conduct. He also writes:
Since Jim Lindgren's unsuccessful effort to verify some of Lott's claims from the criticisms of Tim Lambert, I have not defended Lott publicly in any way. Nor would I now rely on his empirical conclusions absent some outside examination of the sort that was eventually given the work of Michael Bellesiles.
Ralph Luker writes
Lott's sponsors, primarily the American Enterprise Institute, but also the Federalist Society, may now want to distance themselves from him.
More like this
Howard Nemerov has a post defending Lott and responding to Chris Mooney's Mother Jones article. Unfortunately, he gets his facts wrong, leaves out inconvenient facts and indulges in fallacious arguments. I'll go through his post and correct these, but first some general comments.
Even…
This is an annotated list of John Lott's on line reviews at Amazon
and at Barnes and Noble.
Most of his reviews were posted anonymously or under a false name, and he used this anonymity to post many five-star reviews of his own books and to pan rival books.
When you post a review at…
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…
A couple of weeks ago Xrlq wrote about me:
He's the Australian blogger who aspires to do to John Lott what Clayton Cramer did to Michael Bellesiles. Unfortunately, he doesn't do a very good job; while Cramer uncovered overwhelming evidence Bellesiles's fundamental research was…