Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,175 Posts
Academic peers who have sought to examine the findings say Lankford refuses to share the data and details he used to support his findings, or submit it to standard peer review.
That alone makes any so-called study suspicious, if you do not allow your peers to review your samples or methods there is no way a study may be verified. And yes the comments are a satisfying read.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,140 Posts
No peer review = bogus study
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmcgilvray

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,506 Posts
"Violence and Victims" - like that's a journal with any chance of being unbiased?

How about a study comparing the incidences of machete and knife attacks worldwide? Would the correlation of fewer guns = more blade attacks stand?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
I did graduate work in research and it was very tough to get a valid study approved. There are so many steps in the process and each one has flexibility for errors. You can formulate your hypothesis incorrectly. It can be too broad, too narrow, or not something that can be proven. You can formulate your research incorrectly by failing to isolate all of the factors. For example, one of our studies was on the effects of race and academic achievement. In order to do a study like that you have to find all of the possible contributing factors. You can't compare rural families with urban families, Single parents with two parent households, middle class with lower class, etc. Once you have a working hypothesis and have determined your target population, you need to determine how you're going to sample. If you use Church membership to identify your sample, you'll get a completely different result than if you went to the local VD clinic and compiled your sample. Once you collect your data, you have to analyze it, which gives the researcher the opportunity to throw out data that he doesn't feel accurately represent the target population's demographic.

Because of all of this, any study that doesn't provide complete transparency of every step is suspect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,762 Posts
Let's keep in mind that a lot of the pro-gun stats we cite all the time are from studies by John Lott, Jr. and some of this research methodology has been criticized also. It cuts both ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Just another point - I tried to do a study 15 years ago comparing violent crime rates between England, Australia, and the US. I found it almost impossible to make a comparison based on the data available. The definitions are not the same between the different countries.

If someone gets their throat slashed in England, it's a homicide even if they plea it down. In the US the same crime might be categorized as aggravated assault because that's what the DA plea bargained for. FBI statistics are based on what charges were made.

Even trying to compare US statistics over a period of time can be difficult. Mass shootings are one example. It used to be that more than 4 people had to be killed for it to count as a mass shooting. Last year they started counting the number of people shot, instead of the number killed. The result was that it looked like mass shootings in the US suddenly skyrocketed.

Any real research would have to go back through every single case that they used in the study to determine if the data actually met the requirements of the study. Most news services nowadays won't take the time to go through all that information. They'll just publish what's found on the internet and call it science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nmuskier

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
Just like "Climate Change" studies that are junk science. If we listened to the "experts" from 20 years ago, we would be underwater today. I remember in the 70's the "experts" said that a mini ice age was coming, remember that predication?
I have come to the conclusion that all these so called "experts" have some type of vested interest in the BS that they spout. It's all about control and getting a financial pay out.
Remember when coffee, eggs, bacon, butter, etc. was dangerous? Than it was pronounced to be okay? These fools have no idea!
I wish they would just leave us alone!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
The subject "study" complies with the journalistic standards applied by the "fishwrappers" that cited the findings of the study which is:

"If something promotes and supports our agenda (in this case the anti gun ownership agenda) we will print it regardless of whether it is factual or accurate." tout court. That's Latin for all of you folks in Alabama.

Add that to the fact that, other than developing a first class football program, very little of scholarly import comes out of the University of Alabama. So you can completely discount the veracity of the research that was gathered to support the findings of the study.

GO DAWGS!!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,731 Posts
It won't stop every gun grabber on the planet from treating this study as if Moses carried it down from the Mount.

But its nice to know its BS.

GO GAMECOCKS!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
Just like "Climate Change" studies that are junk science. If we listened to the "experts" from 20 years ago, we would be underwater today. I remember in the 70's the "experts" said that a mini ice age was coming, remember that predication?
I have come to the conclusion that all these so called "experts" have some type of vested interest in the BS that they spout. It's all about control and getting a financial pay out.
Remember when coffee, eggs, bacon, butter, etc. was dangerous? Than it was pronounced to be okay? These fools have no idea!
I wish they would just leave us alone!
Science is all about skepticism and questioning. No one at the time said, "oh hey, now we have the immutable word on the health value of coffee, eggs, bacon and butter and we don't need to ever go there again." No, other scientists said, "How do you figure? What is you data? What is your methodology? We're going to have to check that for ourselves."

You should be happy that there are scientist who do this, you're posting on an internet board using a computer or device that has more power than what was used to go to the moon and yet you want to whine about science?

It'd do everyone on the planet good to think more scientifically.

Anecdotal stories are fine, for example when I was a young man come winter I had to trudge out to the pond every morning with an axe to chop a watering hole for the cattle starting about the last week of december up till around the middle of february. I've not had to break ice on the pond even once in the last six years. Does that mean that climate change is happening? Maybe or maybe not but if they had data based on 20,000 or so Warren's across North America and the results were the same then it would call for more study. However my experience is mine and no one else. I am probably about as clear as mud here it's just a pet peeve to see someone on the internet in the modern technological civilization we live in whine about science
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Science is all about skepticism and questioning. No one at the time said, "oh hey, now we have the immutable word on the health value of coffee, eggs, bacon and butter and we don't need to ever go there again." No, other scientists said, "How do you figure? What is you data? What is your methodology? We're going to have to check that for ourselves."

You should be happy that there are scientist who do this, you're posting on an internet board using a computer or device that has more power than what was used to go to the moon and yet you want to whine about science?

It'd do everyone on the planet good to think more scientifically.

Anecdotal stories are fine, for example when I was a young man come winter I had to trudge out to the pond every morning with an axe to chop a watering hole for the cattle starting about the last week of december up till around the middle of february. I've not had to break ice on the pond even once in the last six years. Does that mean that climate change is happening? Maybe or maybe not but if they had data based on 20,000 or so Warren's across North America and the results were the same then it would call for more study. However my experience is mine and no one else. I am probably about as clear as mud here it's just a pet peeve to see someone on the internet in the modern technological civilization we live in whine about science
Good points. The phrase "settled science" is an oxymoron. Science is still examining gravity to determine how it works. How can climate change and genetics be "settled"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truckinbutch

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,557 Posts
Good points. The phrase "settled science" is an oxymoron. Science is still examining gravity to determine how it works. How can climate change and genetics be "settled"?
Peer review and replication of results certainly add credibility to an analysis. One of the things that doesn't get considered much in laymen's' considerations of the world of science, though, is all of the places the process gets skewed in ways that are completely unrelated to the data collected and how it was analyzed.

What many don't realize that there are committees of human beings (and sometimes only individuals) that make the decision of whether a body of research will even be considered for peer review, publication, or funding. A certain orthodoxy is required to even get a seat at this table, much less get a hearing for your research or results.

If something questions the standard orthodoxy of a topic to an excessively large extent, peer review journals will refuse to publish in order to protect their "professional reputation". Happens all the time. It SHOULD happen if something is clearly junk science. Who makes that determination, though, whether it's junk science or whether it's worthy of a hearing? Politics and bias enter the process right there, and it is NOT a rare occurrence.

If you don't think legitimate studies get squashed this way because of who wrote them and what that author believes, without even considering the validity of the actual research, you don't know the world of academia very well at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,660 Posts
It's getting to the point at which many of my fellow (cough cough) scientists are merely political activists with advanced degrees and no conscience.

Regarding the data and methods, perhaps what we need to know the most are what are the assumptions made? This is where (alleged) climate scientists do much of their dirty work. Computer models can handle only so many variables before they are beyond rational confidence limits; so, the modelers just assume unverifiable things (that might make "junk" look pretty good by comparison) and just happen to make their counterfeit science case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GraySkies

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
It's getting to the point at which many of my fellow (cough cough) scientists are merely political activists with advanced degrees and no conscience.

Regarding the data and methods, perhaps what we need to know the most are what are the assumptions made? This is where (alleged) climate scientists do much of their dirty work. Computer models can handle only so many variables before they are beyond rational confidence limits; so, the modelers just assume unverifiable things (that might make "junk" look pretty good by comparison) and just happen to make their counterfeit science case.
This is the same process used by congress to study the effects of new policies. The Congressional Budget Office is a non partisan accounting office that provides economic studies to support Congress. When Congress submits a proposed study, the person or group that submits it has to provide all of the variables. That's when things get screwy. If you want to prove that a program will be completely funded through taxes, you can provide a variable for unemployment that shows unemployment to be at 3% over the next 10 years and economic growth at 10%.

I have never seen anyone provide the economic variables when they quote one of these studies.

As Mark Twain said, "There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top