From now on I will leave the reporting to Dubner

I blogged about Thomas Dolby a few days back. The Freakonomics blog fact-checker must have been on vacation that day, as I guess I got the story a little bit confused, as Thomas Dolby makes clear in this very amusing blog entry about my blog entry.


Princess Leia

I didn't say a thing, actually, especially not to any journalists. I've been quite busy. . .

MM01

I saw the news reporting guess-who filed a law suit against our main man. Some people seem to bring out ICBM (instead of guns, I suppouse) to scare off when they want somebody to shut up though they don't have effective counterargument.

dratskee

What do you mean "effective counterargument"? Saying someone's findings can't be replicated is a serious charge. It means something different than saying other researchers' findings differed (which might mean they used different data or methods). The benchmark for credibility in science is replicability. Lott is saying everyone who tried to replicate his work could and did. Whether a lawsuit is the way to make that point is definitely another issue.

MM01

> The benchmark for credibility in science > is replicability.

Oh, definitely. However, I thought there are more "colorful" things the book says about Lott's work, such as: "Then there was the troubling allegation that Lott actually invented some of the survey data that support his more-guns/less-crime theory."

I do not believe whether other researchers replicated and rejected the theory or collected another data set and rejected, if the above description is true. That's GIGO. Few people bother using "G" to replicate a result. Yet, the guy focuses on one word replicating, instead of crying foul on being effectively called "a cheater." By saying "don't have effective counterargument," I mean I would follow that kind of strategies when I have no say against the biggest claim against me, and complain other smaller things whatever they are.

Princess Leia

I didn't say a thing, actually, especially not to any journalists. I've been quite busy. . .

MM01

I saw the news reporting guess-who filed a law suit against our main man. Some people seem to bring out ICBM (instead of guns, I suppouse) to scare off when they want somebody to shut up though they don't have effective counterargument.

dratskee

What do you mean "effective counterargument"? Saying someone's findings can't be replicated is a serious charge. It means something different than saying other researchers' findings differed (which might mean they used different data or methods). The benchmark for credibility in science is replicability. Lott is saying everyone who tried to replicate his work could and did. Whether a lawsuit is the way to make that point is definitely another issue.

MM01

> The benchmark for credibility in science > is replicability.

Oh, definitely. However, I thought there are more "colorful" things the book says about Lott's work, such as: "Then there was the troubling allegation that Lott actually invented some of the survey data that support his more-guns/less-crime theory."

I do not believe whether other researchers replicated and rejected the theory or collected another data set and rejected, if the above description is true. That's GIGO. Few people bother using "G" to replicate a result. Yet, the guy focuses on one word replicating, instead of crying foul on being effectively called "a cheater." By saying "don't have effective counterargument," I mean I would follow that kind of strategies when I have no say against the biggest claim against me, and complain other smaller things whatever they are.