Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
FWIW, not only have I seen the debate, I also have the written transcript of it.
|
Good, finally a straight answer. I didn't say you didn't see the debates I asked if you had seen them and until now you didn't give a straight answer. Good to see you watched it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
The data is not analyzed nor is it even discussed much outside of the findings.
|
I disagree. Lott is asked by an audience member about how he did the data. Kleck talked about what he controlled for that previous studies had not. The debate certainly looked at more than the Donohue article. Lott talked about how the studies were controlled and for what.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Which is why, as I said, debates like that don't matter. The claims are not reviewed, the data is not there, there is no verification process, etc.
|
I think you misread. I was referring to the "scholarly" article Glenn provided not the debate.
Quote:
|
Much like the "information" you posted in another thread about Kleck and tried to defend. Good to see that you have recognized the problem with that approach.
|
No relation. I have read the work I quoted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Again, serious researchers don't base findings based on what someone said on a debate posted on YouTube.
|
I didn't say they did however we are not doing research in this thread but discussion and to that end it is useful.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
These are complicated issues, and if one wants to have a serious discussion about them one might want to actually learn something about the research that has been done and the material in the field.
|
No doubt crime is a complicated matter and I never said that this debate was the answer. No single piece of information is but I disagree with you that it is not useful to our discussion.
Edit:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Everybody basically agrees with Donahue,
|
No I think they say that the panel said nothing and neither refuted nor supported Lott. It was a draw.