Levitt replies to Lott

William Ford has Levitt's reply to Lott. I think this part sums it up:

Plaintiff's construction is so strained and based on faulty assumptions that it is inconceivable that his construction is the exclusive, reasonable interpretation of the Excerpt. The Excerpt is not about Plaintiff's methodology, as he alleges, but his "results." Not only is the Excerpt silent about Plaintiff's protocols and methodology, but Defendants know of no natural and obvious meaning of the word "results" that is tantamount to "methodology". Instead, the term "results" means just that -- a finding or conclusion. Thus, the natural and obvious meaning of the Excerpt is simply that for whatever reason, other scholars arrived at a dissimilar conclusion than Lott did. The Book does not offer an explanation as to why other scholars could not come up with the same conclusion as Lott: they could have used different data, employed a different statistical analysis, or surveyed a different population group under very different socio-economic circumstances at a different point in time, or there could have been merely a computer malfunction. None of these reasonable, alternative constructions accuse Lott of academic dishonesty or otherwise impugn his professional integrity.

I don't understand this legal stuff, but I think the next step is that the court throws out Lott's case.

Tags

More like this

William Ford reports on the oral arguments in Lott's appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit against Levitt: Evans and Sykes asked all the questions. Ripple remained silent. I have only glanced at the briefs, but based on the questions and comments during the oral argument, Lott's chances do not…
When we last visited Lott's lawsuit against Levitt, Lott was asking the judge to reconsider the dismissal of his case against Freakonomics. Well, the judge denied this, so now Lott wants to amend his complaint. The new complaint adds is now about another sentence in Freakonomics as well: Then…
The judge for Lott's lawsuit against Levitt has thrown out Lott's claim that he was defamed by Freakonomics. (Decision is here.) Some quotes from the decision: The Court will grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) only if "no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be…
The Chicago Tribune reports: A scholar known for his work on guns and crime filed a defamation lawsuit Monday against University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, co-author of the best-seller "Freakonomics." John Lott Jr. of Virginia, a former U. of C. visiting professor, alleges that Levitt…

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens less crime.
That is a fact.
Only a racist thinks otherwise. Think, not knows, because the racist can not present any proof that when a government makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves crime goes down.

Terry, do you perhaps have any data to back up your claims? It seems that the crime rates in countries with gun control compared to countries without gun control, would indicate that at best, it's not as simple as you say.

By Kristjan Wager (not verified) on 28 Jul 2006 #permalink

Terry doesn't need facts, he KNOWS.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 29 Jul 2006 #permalink

> More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens less crime. That is a fact. Only a racist thinks otherwise.

Really? I heard that only zoophilic frotteurs think that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means less crime. I'm pretty sure that's a fact.

BTW, one of the main things that McIntyre has been asking for all along at climateaudit is the archiving of all research data and methods so that research can be replicated easily. And it is hard to argue against that, although I'm sure that there are some qualifications, exceptions, or other considerations.

Has Lott archived his data?

My sense is no.

By Mark Shapiro (not verified) on 30 Jul 2006 #permalink