Howdy, The Jan/Feb 2002 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer has an article claiming that econometric studies are good examples of bad thinking. Though not yet posted online, you can visit the web site at www.csicop.org/si/ and the article is also mentioned at the web site "Math Mistakes in the News," xocxoc.home.att.net/math/inthenews.htm. Of course, your local library will probably have a copy.
I actually browsed the article in the library. It focused on four areas of study: abortion & crime rates; execution & crime rates; imprisonment & crime rates; and guns & crime rates, specifically "More Guns, Less Crime" for the last area of study. Apart from wanting to draw the attention of economist and economic sypathizers to this article, I also wanted to prompt a discussion on the critique being made. Additionally, I wanted to ask if my response to one particular line of argument was in fact a valid one. The line of argument I wish to address is not a new one, especially in regards to the book "More Guns, Less Crime." The argument that is made is the one-size-fits-all application of the fact that correlation does not equal causation. While this fact is unambigiously true, I'm wondering if it is being mistakenly applied to Lott's book. As I understood it, one of the great strengths of the book was that it was an empirical verification of a theory axiomatically built off plausable first principles. In other words, Lott looked at a number of economic predictions that would result from more people carrying concealed hand guns. I can't recall them all, but they were ones like: violent criminals will substitute away from violent crimes to non-violent ones; criminals capable of commuting to states without concealed carry laws will do so; inter alia. These predictions were then verified by the data. So rather than fishing through the data for statistical relationships that may or may not be real, Lott (and Mustard) were making theoritical predictions and verifing them with real world data. These two practices, as I understand it, are significantly different. The first is not "scientifically" valid, while the second is. Hopefully my understanding of the issue is clear enough for me to ask: am I correct? If not, where does my reasoning go astray? Any assistance in facilitating my understanding of the issues will be greatly appreciated! Please take the time to read the S.I. article. Normally it is a fine magazine. Additionally, for those professors on the list, it may make good discussion material in your classes. Best regards, jsh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com
