I’m thinking we should nickname Tim Lambert ‘Tenacious T’ for his work exposing the multitude of issues surrounding John Lott and gun stats. (a modification of Ted Barlow’s joke)
Tim Lambert notes in comments below a couple issues:
First, the mission statement has not changed. Kopel and Reynolds just misrepresented it in their original article.
Groan…I try and give Reynolds the benefit of the doubt, but apparently even simple issues are too tough to get right.
Second, the committee is supposed to evaluate the existing research, so it is better if Kleck is not on the committee so that the committee can objectively examine Kleck’s work. (It is hard to be objective about your own work.) They have actually had Kleck talk to them twice.
This is a good point and really it fits well with the idea of what I wrote earlier. Given they are speaking to Kleck (twice), I think that may be the best strategy. Kleck, like most social scientists, tends to view his work in the best light.
Third, I agree that Civiletti should not be on the panel. He actually resigned from the panel without ever it would seem attending a meeting.
ROTFL–well there goes the boogeyman.
One should be skeptical of boards and the such, but the cynical view that Reynolds and Kopel are promoting fundamentally misunderstands how research should be done. I’m not naive enough to believe that the ideal always happens, but ideological balance is a silly mantra in this case. It may well be that the Board does a poor job, but there are many explanations why that might or might not happen–only one of which is ideology.
Check out today’s update over at Tim’s. He comments on Reynolds’ update concerning a gentleman who claims Lott would never be invited. Reynolds should be feeling foolish today given that Lott presented to the panel on January 16th of 2002.
The hint that this guy was a prankster or kook should have come from this comment:
(I should state that the study director was a typical liberal type – goatee, whiny voice, upset at the stolen election – much like most of the people I encountered there (except the goatee…)
And of course, everyone is still waiting for evidence that Steven Levitt is anti-gun–or that everyone besides James Q. Wilson is ‘entirely anti-gun’.