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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« The shooting of Jemel Roberson | Main | Mance case petition to Supreme Court »

junk science

Posted by David Hardy · 29 November 2018 09:51 AM

Nearly 40% of published scientific studies do not replicate. In other words, they're bogus. That's no news to anyone who has looked at the medical articles on guns and gun control. Here's my Howard Univ. Law Journal article on the subject.

(I've been effectively offline for more than a week, due to a friend being hospitalized).

2 Comments | Leave a comment

FWB | November 29, 2018 7:13 PM | Reply

But you know, PEER REVIEW !!!

However, peer review doesn't involve actually running the experiments and checking the outcome. In most cases, the reviewers know the authors and bias applies ALWAYS.

I worked fro a number of years to get one of my journals to change the review process to double blind. Only the editor would know the authors. All info related to who the authors are and their location would be on a cover sheet with the article void of any information that would allow the reviewer to simply say, "Hey, I know him and his work is good (bad)"

old guy | November 30, 2018 7:48 AM | Reply

I am in the IS field and we do double blind but often you are picked to review because you are experienced in that area so you can usually guess who it is. Part of the problem is the push to publish, nobody cares about the results as long as you publish and get cites which leads to funding.
It's all broken

Leave a comment