Comments on: Lott v. Levitt IV https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/lott-v-levitt-iv/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:52:40 +0000 hourly 1 By: markm https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/lott-v-levitt-iv/comment-page-1/#comment-2740 Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:52:40 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3362#comment-2740 The technical meaning of “replicate” in a refereed economic journal is irrelevant here. Lott is suing over a popular book, not a journal article. 99% of the readers will not know that “replicate” means something different to economists, let alone know what it means.

In other sciences, “replicate” means to repeat the experiment and get similar results. For an attempt to replicate Lott’s work on guns, that would mean getting fresh data and seeing if some reasonable method of statistical analysis (like or unlike Lott’s) gave similar conclusions. What I understood Freakonomics to be saying is that such studies had not arrived at a statistically significant conclusion reinforcing Lott’s, not that recrunching of Lott’s data had indicated fraud.

]]> By: Deltoid https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/04/lott-v-levitt-iv/comment-page-1/#comment-2741 Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:45:54 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=3362#comment-2741 Lott vs Levitt: around the blogs

David Glenn’s article get discussed by Henry Farrell (lots of comments there), Ted Frank and King. Lott finally mentions the lawsuit on his blog. No comments there, so far….

]]>