Replies

Faking data, if true, is not ok. While I support the position Lott takes concerning the role of guns in our culture, there should be enough data available without making it up. In this he is no better than Bellesailes and it casts doubt on his entire thesis. This is not a good thing for those who must fight the sea of misinformation and faulty assumptions of the gun control crowd.
He should never have done such a thing.
In a larger view, what does it say about the integrity of academia that they are constantly being "caught" faking data, misrepresenting findings and flat out lying? What has happened to integrity? This is the kind of future we can expect? All research will be meaningless and unreliable if it can't be trusted. I don't have any answers but it certainly bodes ill when research is used to make policy and that research is tainted by intellectual dishonesty.

"In a larger view, what does it say about the integrity of academia that they are constantly being "caught" faking data, misrepresenting findings and flat out lying? What has happened to integrity? This is the kind of future we can expect? All research will be meaningless and unreliable if it can't be trusted."

The increase in "loss of integrity" is a symptom of the "socialist/liberal" disease in which any lie is OK as long as the perpetrator of the falsehood feels he is doing it "for a good cause". That this propensity spills over from the left into other spheres of philosophy is an unfortunate consequence of the above.

However--in the long run, it doesn't matter, as THE TRUTH "WILL"!!!! COME OUT. The fact that the falsifiers are being investigated and identified on a regular basis actually says that the overall process is working as it should--it just takes a bit longer and a bit more effort than it used to in the "old days" when research integrity was held in higher esteem.

there should be enough data available without making it up. In this he is no better than Bellesailes and it casts doubt on his entire thesis.

That will be tue only if a 'real' survey shows a very different / contradictory result form the phantom survey, which I expect is NOT the case.

I agree absolutely. But read my post again. I never condoned the misreported poll. I merely pointed out that it's almost certainly the only flaw in the book. As I said, if there had been others, the anti-RKBA bunch would have found them and screeched. But so far, the only one I hear casting doubt on the rest of Lott's data and methods is you.