Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Violent crime soaring in Venezuela | Main | Guns in DC taxis »

More on Lott's lawsuit

Posted by David Hardy · 22 April 2006 11:09 AM

Empirical Legal Studies notes a problem Dr. Lott may face in the defamation suit he's filed.

Lott's complaint argues that his critic Levitt said that other statisticians had been unable to replicate Lott's results, and that this is false because (1) in the social sciences, "replicate" means to re-run an analysis, using the same methods and data and (2) every statistician who has done this with Lott's work has replicated his results. Further, the Levitt claim was defamatory because, with this definition of "replicate," failure to replicate means the original study involved "cooking the books."

ELS argues that different social scientists use "replicate" in different and broader ways than this, and in fact the term appears to have no fixed meaning, or at least no one fixed meaning. (In many fields of science, it means to run the original method on a different data body, a different set of lab rats, so a failure to replicate may mean that the original study's conclusions were honestly reported but a product of chance or of its limitations).

That's the big risk with libel suits -- you lose on some narrow point, but the loss is interpreted as proof that the defamatory statement was proven as true.

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Kristopher | April 24, 2006 3:00 PM | Reply

I'm not sure I consider Lott a good 2nd amendment advocate.

Getting caught using sock-puppets to defend his statements online was pretty bad ... and I have never been impressed with folks that are quick to sue for libel.

This is all just my opinion, of course ... I wouldn't want to get sued.

Leave a comment