Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
John Lott and research about firearms
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="YukonGlocker" data-source="post: 2899347" data-attributes="member: 425"><p>The problems with peer-review apply to all objects of study, not only crime and guns. This is why social science is leading all areas of science in dealing with those issues by focusing on training people correctly to begin with, removing publication biases, and rewarding good science (regardless of the outcome) instead of headline newsworthy crappy science. Social science has led the change to open science, including pre-registration of studies, open methods, open data, open code for all analyses, then open and public peer-review. Every single study (peer-reviewed, or not) needs to be fully vetted by people that have the skills to identify problems, whether it's a crime-related study or a cancer-related study. There are a lot of poor studies that make it out of peer-review. But there are lot of great studies that make it out too (or, aren't peer-reviewed in a traditional way, for example blogs that are publicly reviewed and edited into remarkable pieces of information because they are hammered into greatness by great scientists intensely critiquing each other). And guess what, some of the brightest science critics around have found major issues with Lott's studies, and Lott refuses to allow access to data or code (for independent analysis), and refuses to change things that are clearly wrong. In short, Lott isn't being scientific, and that's why he and much of his work have become a joke in the scientific community.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="YukonGlocker, post: 2899347, member: 425"] The problems with peer-review apply to all objects of study, not only crime and guns. This is why social science is leading all areas of science in dealing with those issues by focusing on training people correctly to begin with, removing publication biases, and rewarding good science (regardless of the outcome) instead of headline newsworthy crappy science. Social science has led the change to open science, including pre-registration of studies, open methods, open data, open code for all analyses, then open and public peer-review. Every single study (peer-reviewed, or not) needs to be fully vetted by people that have the skills to identify problems, whether it's a crime-related study or a cancer-related study. There are a lot of poor studies that make it out of peer-review. But there are lot of great studies that make it out too (or, aren't peer-reviewed in a traditional way, for example blogs that are publicly reviewed and edited into remarkable pieces of information because they are hammered into greatness by great scientists intensely critiquing each other). And guess what, some of the brightest science critics around have found major issues with Lott's studies, and Lott refuses to allow access to data or code (for independent analysis), and refuses to change things that are clearly wrong. In short, Lott isn't being scientific, and that's why he and much of his work have become a joke in the scientific community. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
John Lott and research about firearms
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom