Ted Frank has your must read blog post on Lott's lawsuit against Levitt. He has a copy of the complaint and an explanation from Lott:
When a book sells well over a million copies this goes beyond a mere debate among academics. To say that other scholars have been unable to replicate one's work is the same thing as fraud. I and other academics have written Levitt asking him to fix his claim. He has been unwilling to do so. I have people approaching me frequently asking if it is true that other scholars can not even replicate my research. Apparently the numerous academic articles in places such as the JLE have not been sufficient to offset this effect.
Levitt has sensibly kept his mouth shut and just posted the news story about the lawsuit on his blog.
Dr. Free-Ride is not impressed:
Hey, maybe economics doesn't work the same way science does. But, in the case that it's trying to, it's worth noting that there are lots of explanations for failed attempt to replicate results. Maybe the researcher trying to replicate the results made a mistake. Maybe the original researcher made a mistake. Maybe there's some parameter not yet sufficiently controlled in the studies (perhaps because it hasn't been noticed yet, or recognized to be important to the results). Falsification is way down the list of things you check when your attempts to replicate research founder.
Also, there's something perplexing about Lott's claim that researchers who disagreed with his results "used 'different data or methods to analyze the relationship between gun-control laws and crime' and made no attempt to 'replicate' " his research. Presumably the point of Lott's research was to demonstrate that there was a robust relationship between gun-control laws and crime -- one that wasn't an artifact produced by one particular data set or one particular methodology for analyzing it. At the very least, wouldn't meaningful replication include seeing if the relationship persists when additional data are examined? Or does Lott thinks "replication" amounts to no more than checking his math on the problem he set up?
Sarah at GalleyCat writes:
The thing that seems odd is that Dubner isn't named as a co-defendant -- but that's likely because Lott doesn't have a longstanding axe to grind against him as he seems to have with Levitt. The story stretches back to a 2001 panel at the National Academy of Sciences where Levitt's research on gun control was ultimately attacked by Lott -- anonymously -- in print and online. It's always fun when grudges end up as lawsuits...
Tyler Cowen reacts with:
"!" is all I can say.
Scott at SlushPile.net has:
I'm beginning to think that lawsuits are the literary equivalent of the rapper beef. There is a longstanding tradition of hip hop performers calling each other out on record in order to generate controversy. Sometimes this conflict is just a healthy rivalry, other times it is a dangerous tension. And occasionally, the beef is generated by a younger artist who is just trying to make a name for himself. Early on in his career, an up-and-coming 50 Cent took a swing at some of raps biggest names with his single How to Rob. The song detailed his plans for robbing those hip hop giants and when some of them responded on their own subsequent records, everyone knew the name 50 Cent.
ArchPundit comments
This might seem funny outside of academia, but within academia it's friggen hysterical. The mild criticisms Levitt levels at Lott wouldn't even count for interesting tiff at a professional meeting where boorish behavior and condescending denouncements of others are the norm. To sue over such mild statements is bizarre and demonstrates just how thin skinned and bizarre John Lott is.
Kevin Drum says:
Needless to say, to "replicate" a result doesn't necessarily mean to use precisely the same data and methods as the original researcher, but as it happens other researchers have used Lott's data and methods, and once they corrected his coding mistakes they found that his results didn't hold up. In response, Lott simply switched to a new method so that the correctly coded data would continue to support his theory.
Steve Sailer doesn't have anything sensible to write, but boy does he ever dislike Levitt:
By himself, Levitt is a poor prose stylist. When I debated him in Slate.com in 1999, I felt sorry for him because his response was so weakly written. But, Dubner is a facile, persuasive-sounding professional writer, who makes Levitt's slap-dash ideas sound more plausible than they really are. Plus, Dubner worships Levitt, which feeds into Levitt's egomania.
Nicki comes out in support of Lott:
But there are times when one needs to strike back, and I believe this is one of those times.
Also blogging on it we have Atrios, Hit and Run, Ralph Luker, David Hardy, Jason Soon and Taggert
"But there are times when one needs to strike back, and I believe this is one of those times."
Well, that's why we have concealed firearms, duh. Shooting Levitt will certainly deter him, if not others.
Archpundit is dead-on with this:
Lott's claim that those failing to confirm his results used "different data or methods to analyze the relationship between gun-control laws and crime" is laughable.
I got an idea. I should sued NSF + the reviewers for not getting my last grant :p
I wonder if that means you have to make the same dummy variable errors, in order to replicate?
"I got an idea. I should sued NSF + the reviewers for not getting my last grant"
I hate to bring it up, since I'm generally in sympathy, but I note that one of the points brought in the US lawsuit by various black individuals against a bunch of corporations, in order to receive compensation for slavery, included pain and suffering and punitive damages against the companies for issuing press releases stating that they thought the suit was groundless.... The judge of course decided on that and similar examples of legal reasoning, that the suit was groundless.
"Nicki comes out in support of Lott:"
Funny that someone posting from "libertyzone" thinks it's fine to use the coercive power of government to get one's way.
I think it's rather interesting that none of the more well known gunhugger blogs are silent on Lott's lawsuit. I've seen nothing on the usual suspect blogs (Clayton Cramer, Joel Rosenberg, FreeRepublic, etc.)
In the copy of the complaint under "Factual Allegations", there is the following statement: "For over 20 years, he has established a reputation for exacting, credible, and reliable economic analysis."
Wow! Lott just opened himself up to having Levitt's lawyers bring in Mary Rosh, Lott's tenure denial, the 1997 missing survey, his inability to obtain a tenured position at any university, among many other things that would put that "fact" into serious question.
I'd bet it never gets to trial and the judge just tosses it. I hope it doesn't, though, and Lott gets laid bare in court. His inability to admit simple errors would make him a very entertaining witness.
The John McCall email is an interesting part of the complaint. Do you think Lott asked McCall to pursue Levitt to set him up for the lawsuit?
Except the minor detail of being fairly well vindicated in his demolition of Levitt's central thesis: that (racially selective) abortion cuts youth crime in the next generation.
Levitt's headline theory is false, as anyone who resided in the US during the early nineties phase of the Crack Wars could have testified. Some academics need to get out of their ivory towers, deal with the strange ways that political correctness deforms the life of the mind and get over their celebrity star-struckdom.
Neither Crooked Timber or Tim Lambert were never really game enough to acknowledge this falsity throughout the whole sorry history of this debacle. One would hate to think that that personal or political biases influenced their thinking.
At least Lott got the right answer on Levitt's abortion theory. As Orwell once said in another context: "They happened even though Lord Halifax said they happened."
For those of you just coming in, Jack Strocchi has a bit of an axe to grind over this issue. And, not surprisingly, he is misrepresenting Tim's stance on it.
Jack, at the risk of me repeating myself, I don't find Sailer's arguments against Levitt's thesis persuasive. Try to get your head around the fact that isn't because of political correctness or because I'm star struck. Is it possible that this is because I know more about statistics than you do?
I noticed that most of the commenters at 'Overlawyered' were in favor of the lawsuit. Just another data point confirming my thesis that 90% of self-proclaimed libertarians are just right-wingers.
Barry, that must be a new definition of "most" I was previously unaware of to encompass one commenter out of five. I don't even know if that one commenter is a libertarian, for that matter: we don't have a political filter to comment at Overlawyered. Even someone spouting made-up "90%" statistics is entitled to comment.
Cheers,
Ted
Posted by: Tim Lambert | April 14, 2006 10:04 AM
The risk of repeating himself has never stopped Tim L. from giving his bonnet-ridden bees a routine public buzz every now and again.
The old saying is that one should never start literal arguments with people who buy ink by the barrell load. Likewise one should never start numerical arguments with people who crunch numbers by the hard-drive.
Tim L., safely esconced in his ivory tower, was never too impressed with my eye witness reports on the juvenile flavour of the Crack Wars during the early nineties in the US. Those kinds of facts can come in through the tradesmans entrance, thankyou very much. So I suppose I should stay put into my lowly place.
But what about other statistical big-wigs who have found holes in Levitt's arguments? Both Tim L. and Crooked Timber have been more concerned with criticising Levitt's critics than criticising Levitt himself. Although Tim L., to his credit, did not wholeheartedly buy into Levitt's theory himself.
I know Tim L. does not find Sailer's arguments against Levitt persuasive. (Sailer, BTW, is no slouch at stats. But Sailer is known as a fan of the rotten Murray, which puts him beyond the pale.) Tim L. dismissed Lott's criticisms of Levitt since no one can take Lott seriously. (Once bitten...) And he seems to have ignored the recent takedown of Levitt by the AEI. (The unspeakable Murray is on its payroll.)
CT's love-fest cum seminar on Levitt contrasted badly with the much more hard-headed treatment handed out to Levitt at the AEI. Why is that, I wonder?
Goetze and Foote did register on Tim L.'s blogdar. Could it be that those two had no obvious right-wing connections and hailed from an august institution>? Just askin'...
Posted by: brokenlibrarian | April 14, 2006 08:50 AM
I have an axe to grind with Tim L. but not because he is flat wrong on any particular issue, including Levitt. It is because Tim L. directs most of his "junk science" critical fire against unscientific practice by "right-wingers" or small-fry outside the scientific mainstream.
This is unseemly when a fair amout of junk science gets a free pass when it is pumped out by "left wingers" (eg anti-Darwinian critics of socio-biology) or is given the impramatur of standard social science modellers (eg Levitt's uncritical fan club.)
I have never misrepresented Tim L.'s delicately straddled stance on Levitt. Which is roughly that of "moot point" on substantive issues but "no friends to the Right" of Levitt.
Jack:
I'm comparing the length of your comments to the length of everybody else's, and by your own logic I shouldn't be having this conversation.
Therefore...
Posted by: brokenlibrarian | April 14, 2006 10:29 PM
I dislike the part of me that gets locked into tit-for-tat blogspats as much as anyone else. But I can't let brokenlibrarian's logical disabilities go unattended.
Obviously a person who "buys ink by the barrell load" buys the hacks that spill that ink (or sprays those pixels) in spades as well. With the commensurate power to cover the world with their words.
I have neither of those extensive and expensive powers. So "by that logic...[brokenlibrarian should have no problems]...having this conversation".
Of course, logical validity is only a necessary condition for a useful conversation. Some contribution of substantial empirical veracity might help.
Jack:
It must be so hard to be the lone voice of reason, buried under the weight of the words of your intellectual inferiors. I don't know how you put up with it.
Posted by: brokenlibrarian | April 15, 2006 01:27 AM
The facts, not puerile status considerations, are the main burden shouldered by the honest student. The burden is lightened if said student concedes "I was wrong" when he is wrong.
You should try it some time.
Jack:
Well, you're the one complaining about "ivory towers". If that's not a "status consideration" I'm not sure what is.
Posted by: brokenlibrarian | April 15, 2006 08:40 PM
On current form, I would bet on brokenlibrarian's ignorance. In this case I was returning fire to Tim L. who had earlier on used his academic status to belittle my arguments. Complaining about this kind of tactic is the very opposite of endorsing it, or playing that game.
My reference to Tim L.'s safe "esconcement in an ivory tower" was a little dig about his tactic of dismissing my defence of Sailer, and criticism of Tim L.'s fence-straddling, by brandishing the "argument from (academic) authority" bludgeon over my head.
In logic this is known as argumentum ad verecundiam. Pulling rank on an academic inferior is a low blow in pure intellectual terms.
Now I don't doubt that Tim L. has forgotten more about statistics than I will ever know. But he conveniently side-steps my major criticism of him which is that he has an ideologically lop-sided attitude towards "junk science": a jewellers eye for the flaws on the Right and poltically correct blinkers for the sins on the Left.
This is the bone I have to pick with him. One that brokenlibrarian should at least gotten his head around before he went off half-cocked.
Bullshit, Jack. I did not use my "academic status" to belittle your arguments. You concede that I know more about statistics than you, but you are utterly certain that I am wrong on the statistical arguments about abortion and crime and that it is only my slavish devotion to political correctness that makes me refuse to admit that 2+2=5.
Jack, there is no rule requiring people to criticize everyone and you're off-base about Lambert having blinkers. Tim denounced and was quite critical of Bellesiles' falsified research.
If you're going to try the 'not criticize everyone equally' line, when are you going to criticize the gun rights advocates for failing to even mention, much less criticize Lott's silly lawsuit against Levitt?
Jack:
You were the first person to bring up Tim's academic status.
How's that persecution complex working out for you?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | April 16, 2006 01:27 PM
Tim L. has already used professional authoritarianism to crack down on cheeky comments. Now he follows up with a burst of personal abuse. Its not a good sign, is it?
These tactics dont make much of an impression on me. And I dare say they are not so effective against researchers packing a statistical wallop comparable to Tim L. This is the point I made in comment above:
Perhaps a little opposition research and a few well-targetted criticisms can reduce the credibility of those dreadful RWDB's. But then what about Foote and Goetze...?
And are all these critics of Levitt guilty of insisting "2 + 2 + 5"? (A ludicrous caricature of the critics which not even Levitt would endorse. And Tim L.'s criticisms of Sailer's critique have never amounted to anything more than a rehash of Levitt's discredited talking points.) This kind of argument discloses an arrogance and ignorance unworthy of the better angels of Tim L.'s nature.
Once you start using these tactics you start an arms race that no one can win. There is always someone with more credentials, or a greater capacity for invective, who can be dragged out to trump the contender.
Posted by: brokenlibrarian | April 16, 2006 05:13 PM
Tim L. was the first person to use academic status in the argument.
I see brokenlibrarian still labours under the crippling handicap of his logical disability.
Jack:
Quote him.
Jack, perhaps you could explain how on earth you managed to construe my comment as "personal abuse"? Please explain.
Posted by: brokenlibrarian | April 16, 2006 09:56 PM
I have already quoted and linked twice to the relevant passage. Time for brokenlibrarian to take his first tottering steps towards google locomotion.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | April 17, 2006 04:37 AM
It is offensive and abusive to begin a comment by hurling the term "bullshit" at a disputant. Scatological terms are intended to upset the person, rather than examine the idea.
Maybe I am a little touchy about these things, although I am not alone in urging civilized discourse. Political blogging is confrontational enough without coarse and abusive language being thrown in for ill measure.
Call me old-fashioned but I think arguments should be judged by their epistemological value: logical validity and empirical veracity. Littering comments with personal abuse, professional credentalism and political associations sheds little light, but conveys much heat to over-worked people.
Jack, what I called "bullshit" was your claim that I had used my "academic status" to belittle your arguments. You've been repeatedly challenged on this by brokenlibrarian as well and all you've done in response is to call him or her names. Your absurd claim that I had abused you would seem to be your attempt to distract from your failure to support your "academic status" fabrication.
So is just me or do other peopel get reminding of a famous quotation about "Culture" and "Browning" every time Jack uses the words "ivory tower"?
Jack:
Tim:
I see nothing about academic credentials or status in this line.
Ted, you're right. I read too quickly, and mistook 'Deoxy' for more than one person (who knows, in their heads they might be).
Jack: "CT's love-fest cum seminar on Levitt contrasted badly with the much more hard-headed treatment handed out to Levitt at the AEI. Why is that, I wonder? "
I guess that this shows my liberal bias, or liberal attachment to anti-American factuality, or something, is anybody else amazed when AEI is cited as an authority on anything?
Barry, it gives me no pleasure to note that you're two for two in false knee-jerk accusations. Jack's "at the AEI" is presumably referring to the broad array of academics who spoke at the AEI conference on the abortion-crime link debate; only one of the nine (along with the two moderators, of whom I was one) were affiliated with AEI, even if one grants validity to the invalid ad hominem.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | April 18, 2006 07:05 AM
Obviously I have an old-fashioned irony-free notion of common place English language words and nuances. Lets be kind and say that Tim L. is taking liberties with represetations here.
To recap:
Tim L. is an academic who initially suggested that his intellectual ideas trumped Strocchi/Sailer's on the Levitt question he "knows more about statistics than [me]". This boast I took to be a reference to his very respectable academic accreditation/occupations in the numerical sciences ie his academic status.
This argument no doubt has some (contingent) empirical veracity, but it does not have (necessary) logical validity. Substantiating an intellectual idea by reference to the personal or professional histories is a fallacious way to draw conclusions. It is "pulling rank" of a kind in order to "win" the argument.
It is therefore a transparent fabrication to call my inference a "fabrication".
Likewise "bullshit" is a term of abuse or vulgar derision as commonly understood. On this score I have no intention of indulging Tim L's Humpty-Dumpty-in-Wonderland lexicographical whimsies. If he doubts that this is offensive language he should try it on an officer of the law sometime and see how far he gets.
Most people, like me, would feel abused if someone hurled this term at them in the middle of a civilised discourse. Perhaps he was just letting off steam. Maybe I shouldnt be so prissy about it.
In any case, if Tim L. wants to minimise "distractions" from the argument he should abide by Aristotelian logical norms and lose the salty language.
Jack:
End of thread, folks. No further arguments can destroy Jack's credibility (such as it is) more than his last post already has. We might as well just pack it up.
Jack "academic status" means an academic qualification or position. It does not mean knowing more about some topic than another person. Unlike Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass you don't get to redefine words at your convenience.
Now Jack, in an argument about complicated statistics isn't knowledge about statistics relevant? And referring to Levitt's statistical analysis as "discredited talking points" does not convince me that he wrong. Sorry. Can you, for example, tell me what he got wrong here?
As for my use of the word "bullshit", Jack might want to read this.
"So is just me or do other peopel get reminding of a famous quotation about "Culture" and "Browning" every time Jack uses the words "ivory tower"?"
Not sure which of the following you mean, since they all seem to apply to some degree:
"Culture browning results from the oxidation of phenolic compounds." http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=35145
"Arts & Culture, Browning, Montana (MT) AllPages.com Yellow Pages" http://mt.allpages.com/browning/community-services/arts-culture/
"Browning's Culture of Desire (1993) regarded modern gay American culture as having evolved out of sexual desire." http://mt.allpages.com/browning/community-services/arts-culture/
For those of you who need to know but dare not speak, the correct URL for
"Browning's Culture of Desire (1993) regarded modern gay American culture as having evolved out of sexual desire." is
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517370336?v=glance
Hey cool, you couldn't find the answer via Google:
"When I hear the word culture, I reach for my Browning"
(more often translated as "revolver" instead of "Browning".)
I love that quote! ROFL! Game Set and Match to Mr. Lambert!