|
Members
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,561
|
[quote] Originally posted by [Labret]@Dec 2 2003, 10:35 AM
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buff,Dec 2 2003, 08:33 AM
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by [Labret
,Dec 2 2003, 09:33 AM]
Quote:
God its like beating my head against a fucking wall. Listen, we are all well aware how statistics are manipulated and created, in fact, we are required to take courses in statistics and methods of social research in order to learn to how to deal with such matters. Trust me, I am sure my knowledge of means of gathering and manipulating data sets is far above average and as a result I know which statistics I can accept and which ones I should be suspect.
I will say this one more time. Checks and fucking balances. I know you probably like to think its just a bunch of yes men standing around, circle jerking each other and making shit up without a care in the world, but your accusation that "facts" are just "created" in academia is so utterly absurd that I almost want to disregard your post and not respond. Evidently nothing I have said has sunk in. Academia works in such a way that one CANNOT just make shit up.
|
One cannot just make shit up....
Try this on for size, fucktard:
Emory University upholds objective truth and ousts an anti-gun history professor for his phony research
Quote:
Mr. Bellesiles's book won the 2001 Bancroft Prize, the most prestigious award in the field of American history. Anti-gun activists seized upon his work, since it supports their view that the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" does not refer to individual gun ownership but to a collective establishment of "a well-regulated militia."
Trouble is, he seems to have made up his data. Other historians found that his sources either did not exist or contained completely different evidence.
And now Emory University has taken the unusual step of investigating his research to see whether it violated a university policy against academic dishonesty. Emory commissioned a blue-ribbon panel of historians—Stanley Katz of Princeton, Hanna Gray of the University of Chicago, and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich of Harvard—to examine Mr. Bellesiles's research, and the panel's report found him guilty. Mr. Bellesiles, while still maintaining his innocence, resigned.
Mr. Bellesiles developed his claim that early Americans seldom owned guns by studying wills, probate records, and other inventories of property, then counting the numbers of guns that turned up. Thus he claims that from 1765 to 1790 on the frontiers of northern New England and western Pennsylvania the gun ownership rate was only 14 percent.
To arrive at these figures, though, the panel found that Mr. Bellesiles lumped all kinds of different information together, then manipulated it statistically. Wills seldom mention specific property, other than keepsakes, and some inventories were intended to be just of farm implements. Probate information from the estates of women, who were less likely to own guns, was added into probate information from the estates of men. Conflating all of this together and then taking percentages of the number of times guns were mentioned allowed him to understate the number of firearms.
Mr. Bellesiles also uses certain records from local militias, in which citizens came together into ad hoc military units to repel Indian attacks, fight the British in 1812, or fight each other in the Civil War. He claims militiamen came to the fight basically unarmed. He cites one muster in 1746 in which only 57 percent of the men brought a gun. The review panel found this to be a blatant misrepresentation. The original records list only one company—composed of particularly poor citizens—as being 43 percent disarmed. Of the other five companies, every man brought a rifle in two of them. The total rate of gun ownership in the militia was 80 percent.
But the problems in Mr. Bellesiles's research went beyond mushy statistics-mongering and biased and selective interpretations. Mr. Bellesiles claimed to have used probate records in San Francisco. But those records turned out to have been destroyed in the great earthquake and fire of 1906. When asked to produce his original notes, Mr. Bellesiles said that he lost them when his office was flooded, an event that his colleagues at Emory dispute. When asked about fallacious data posted on his website, he insisted that some hacker had put it there.
|
Labret, you are a dipshit of the first order. This shit goes on all over the place in Academia today, precisely because leftards are the one overseeing the the other leftards.
Noam Chomsky (since you brought that issue back up) detests capitalism and the West in general, yet he has no problem owning a couple of boats, 2 houses, a sports car, and SUV, and assorted other goodies provided by capitalism. I called him on his hypocrisy (after a little research), and he shut the fuck up.
So, I'm gonna put your "One just cannot make shit up" quote right there along side your new economic theory that higher costs for business is an economic stimulant in the "Idiotic shit that flows off Labret's Keyboard" pile.
Any other contributions you'd like to make to it today, or will you be too busy "learning" that "AIDs was created by the Pat Robertson to kill fags" or some such similar tripe?
What a douchebag. |
Thank you for proving my point. He got caught and ousted.
I feel bad for you.
Like I said, I can make shit up all day. It will get called out. |
Dipshit, his book was praised, won awards, and went unchecked by YOUR leftist Academics for a few years before some Libertarians busted his ass.
There was no check or balance by any Academics until some private think tanks did their own investigation.
Shut your cocksocket, bitch.
__________________
|