SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (109649)4/16/2005 3:32:14 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 793670
 
but it is enough to keep you from drawing solid conclusions from the data.

I disagree, Tim

If someone can show that a study didn't control for factors other than the one being tested for than, they have showed that you can't rely on that study, they haven't shown that its wrong but they have shown that it doesn't go far enough to make its case. Technically this might not be considered a study, it isn't original data but rather looking up and commenting on publicly available statistics but the same principle applies.

And since I begin with the assumption that Krugman is smart and has available to him at Princeton what used to be several very good demographers who could answer these questions with one phone call and/or also has available New York Times fact checkers, I'm assuming he's aware of that literature, has taken it into account but doesn't have room for a great detail in a short op ed column.

He is smart and he does have resources available to him, that doesn't mean that he has taken to account other factors. He is highly partisan and his public writings often serve to advance an agenda.

That led me to dig up the research literature, one rather critical piece of which argued (a) using Lott's data and methodology, the crime rates went up, or (b) the data was simply not strong enough to support either thesis.

And then there have been other studies showing it made no difference (as well as other smaller and older studies that seem to support Lott). But if the only study you had was Lott's and you realized that there was several important factors he didn't cover, than you would have a good argument that Lott's study wasn't conclusive.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News