Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (31825)	10/10/2001 9:29:42 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 82486

How'life E? PM mr if you want.

To: E who wrote (31825)	10/11/2001 7:06:14 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I wasn't attacking you. I just remembered that you have found Wills to be a source on "fabulators" in the past and I thought you would find it interesting to find him endorsing the most blatant fabulated work in memory. >>You describe Wills as "on the side of the fabulator." Is that accurate, in the sense that the fact of the fabulations was known to Wills at the time he reviewed the book? Or is it... shall we say... a distortion of his position? I was unsure, but it appears that Wills fully ignored the critics and accepted the author's work w/o question. I have been unable to find any reference anywhere where Wills takes anything back. I suspect he too is embattled, w/o defense. Lindgren makes reference to those like Wills in the same Globe story (let's face it, they're both from NU and Wills made the prominent NYTimes review, so Lindgren was directly fingering Wills w/o mentioning his name): ...Lindgren, a specialist in probate law and statistical analysis (and a believer, he says, in gun control), became suspicious of Bellesiles's findings early on and began posting his objections on history discussion sites. He looked over some of Bellesiles's sources, and eventually wrote the academic paper, ''Counting Guns in Early America,'' which he will present today at Harvard and later at other institutions. The paper argues, among other things, that Bellesiles's data are grossly in error and that some of his conclusions are mathematically impossible. Lindgren also says that when he contacted Bellesiles, trying to get him to produce the details of his research, Bellesiles was unable to do so. ''In virtually every part of the book examined in detail,'' Lindgren told the Globe, ''there are problems ... An enormous number of people have become cautious. It's clear that this book is impressive to legal and social historians who do not check the background. Law professors and quantitative historians have been suspicious about the book since its release.''... boston.com I read that Lindgren is getting his PhD in Sociology at the University of Chicago with concentration in statistics. I wouldn't be surprised if his paper on Bellesiles becomes his thesis: law.northwestern.edu The NYTimes shares some responsibility too, I believe they chose Wills for a reason. Someone there wanted Bellesiles to receive a fully favorable, unquestioning review and that someone knew Wills would deliver such w/o apparently a thought. Would they ask Hillary Clinton to review her husband's book? No, because it's too obvious. In this case it was less obvious to those who didn't know Wills' history in history. Now the NYTimes - like Columbia and Emory - should be embarrassed too. Funny, I can't find any reference in the NYTimes concerning the Bellesiles debacle. I wonder why they haven't found that among the news that's "fit to print".