Simply saying that "We respectfully disagree with Dr. Lott's comments and stand by our editorial" is irksome. As one friend wrote me: "Their response is puzzling--they just ignore everything you say and say they stand by their original conclusions--bizarre."
UPDATE: SayUncle puts this in perspective here.
Robert VerBruggen mentions the exchange here at NRO's phi beta cons.
Related Posts
Bias in academiaAs the article says, these types of numbers don't come about by randomness. I have a discussion of this bias in my boo- Sachs' amazing claims don't seem to hold waterThe Economist Magazine points out that there might be a few problems with Jeffrey Sachs phenomenal claims.Jeffrey Sachs
Seeing when relationships breakupThere is a lot of interesting data that is in need of being explained here.Worried about when you might get dumped? Fac- The Problematic "famous file-sharing paper"Craig Newmark has previously covered the problems with Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf's widely cited and disc
- Russell Roberts Unable to Respond to the Answer that I gave him?In a previous post Russell Roberts asked for a single example of a useful instrument in empirical work. So again, my q
- Did the Journal of the Political Economy make a serious mistake in accepting a paper?John Palmer has an extremely lengthy excerpt from an investigative report on a paper on file sharing that was published
Pediatrics attack: This passes for academic discussions in medicine?
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
