Except for the fact the scenario is far from being made up. It is well demonstrated in the united states that both educators in students alike are forced into refraining from engaging in dissenting thoughts, especially those that are based on a conservative outlook of various matters. Educators have been forced to resign over the use of preferred gender pronouns, students have been arrested by school resource officers and threatened with expulsion for no reason other than having a difference of opinion from what the educator is presenting.
Your "intellectual conspiracy" approach is expected. It's part of the post truthing after all. It is the case that educated people tend to be more liberal. But that reflects the nature of critique and how that destroys ideologues. I've already referred to this stuff with the authoritarian personality, which is tested on conservatism through psychological experiments.
It is not a matter of conspiracy. Rather it is simply a noting of events documented as occurring by the news outlets in the united states. And as has been documented, dissenting thoughts are not simply unwelcome, they are unacceptable in academia. The rise of so-called "safe spaces" are merely a symptom of such a widespread matter, as they are billed as providing students with locations where they are free from being confronted with ideas that suggest they are wrong in their understanding of the world.
So, rather than refer to the primary research (which, by definition, generates conflicting conclusions), you'd make some vague reference to media stories. Been watching Fox News have you?
It is not research, it is tainted by political bias, not only by those claiming to be researchers, but also by those who provide the grant money so that the supposed "research" can be carried out. Get back to us when a study supporting the position of the NRA is found to be financed by the Joyce Foundation, and then you can point to how the politics of those providing research funding plays no part in the end results of the opinion pieces being presented in the guise of research papers. Is that what this is now coming to? Citations of media accounts of students and educators being discriminated against on the basis of differing opinions? There are more than enough accounts documented and easily presented to prove that such is indeed an underlying problem. But since they are ultimately being presented to a closed mind that cannot accept the notion of the peer review process being intellectually worthless, doing such would amount to a waste of time that could be better spent addressing others who contribute something more substantial than mere out-of-hand dismissals of everything that undermines their positions, and demonstrates that they have no idea whatsoever of what they are talking about.
You've already been educated on this. You're ignoring papers that have been through peer review, which use data available to all and which can be checked and rebuked. You don't do that out of any celebration of valid research. You do that because of your bias. Whining about other bias when your position is closed minded is not credible. No real need. Your intellectual conspiracy is laughable. That you are confirming beliefs consistent with right wing authoritarianism has also already been acknowledged. Just more whinge. Criminology splits into numerous schools of thought, some orthodox and some heterodox. Those adopting more right wing approaches, typically really just building on the Chicago School's focus on deterrence, aren't denied publication opportunities. You'd know that if you bothered to review the literature...
Continually referring to the peer review process does not mean anything, as those tasked with doing the reviewing are subject to political bias. It is no different than asking a hijacked and malware infested computer to perform a system diagnostic on itself to look for questionable software, and it coming up with nothing because the security program has become compromised as a result.
Even if the peer review process fails (and, given publication bias, that can occur) then we have data and method available to anyone to check. Thanks for being so willing to advertise pro gunners as anti intellectual
Numerous so-called "studies" that have been subjected to what is claimed to be "peer review" by their supporters, have been found lacking in terms of not only reliable methodology, but also basic credibility. What is presented within them cannot even be considered legitimate data. They are ultimately nothing more than a politically motivated opinion piece designed to try and generate public support for greater firearm-related restrictions through fearmongering tactics and outright intellectual dishonesty.
A standard part of literature review is to find rebuke which shows how methodology is problematic. That isn't a difficult task. We saw that, for example, with how Lott misapplied a dummy variable approach. None of that suggests your 'ignore research' is credible. Indeed, it informs us that we actually need to refer to more research. That's terribly inconvenient for post truthing mind you... Empty whinge that is only trying to justify adopting a uneducated approach. Can a researcher become less objective? Of course. It would be difficult, for example, for Kleck to publish results that are inconsistent with his previous work. I wouldn't have a tantrum and accuse him of bias, just to justify doing less reading. I would compare his methodology and results with other research. That embraces the literature and necessarily sneers at a post truth outlook.
Don't be Cretinous, you know full well those studies are based on shootings between Gangs in Ghettos and Slums between Rival Dealers of illegal drugs, and other common assorted criminal elements. If you use Biker Gangs as Hell's Angels and Gypsie Jokers, etc.... You can conclude Motorcycle effect is detrimental in relation to Crime, even if 90% of all Motorcycle use is inoffensive. The effect of Crime on society is the true issue, not Firearms, Crime is concentrated in Cesspool type enclaves in Democrat soup kitchen Cities, if you compare other Cities without minority Gangs, Crime drops off exponentially when you have fewer saggy pants Gangstas roaming the streets.
Scholarly research controls for numerous socio-economic variables. Someone with a love of education would already know that. Note, however, we've moved from the usual anti-intellectualism. We now have the skewed focus on race.
Again be not Cretinous, if minorities are committing Crimes disproportionately compared to whites or other non minority races, and make up a huge percentage of those arrested, prosecuted convicted and sent to prison, where is the problem with that ? You keep mentioning education and race, I grew up in an environment of education, Liberal Democrats, I wanted to read, I was reading before Kindergarten, at grade level 2, what you refer to as education has nothing to do with Agenda based studies, for instance, you hate guns, so you will never see any proper use for guns in society. The people publishing your favoured studies have an Agenda, to prove gun effect as deleterious to society, and if you count Criminal use of guns in that context without the other crucial salient elements, the vast majority of legitimate gun owners that commit zero crimes, one could take away a false impression of firearms benefit to society.
Neat combination of race and anti-education comment here! That's a new one. Back to the real world. It doesn't matter if you're pro or anti-gun, you should refer to the research. It doesn't matter if you're pro or anti-gun, you shouldn't make nonsense racial claims which ignore the multiple variables used as controls.
Do not be Cretinous, and stop whinging, Research does not cover varibles properly, when you examine neighborhoods in major U.S. Cities, it becomes quite clear what the criminal demographic is, age groups, ethnicity, race all are factors in criminal activity.
Again with the untruths! It is very easy to control for socio-economic variables. However, anyone that suggests that there is a simple race effect is clearly offering racist comment. I hope you wouldn't do that.
Have you ever entered a U.S. Prison ? I have, to interview inmates for Official purposes. As a working LEO here in the U.S. I know what I observed first hand.
For everything that has been said on the part of yourself throughout this discussion, none of it has had to do with actually addressing the fact that those who are tasked with executing the peer review process, are prone to political bias, and allow said bias to compromise the integrity of the process by supporting politically-motivated opinion pieces disguised as research papers. Instead what has been done on the part of yourself, is spending considerable time and effort into trying to change the subject, to ignore the issue of bias entirely, and pretend that it simply does not exist. Such would indicate an inability on the part of yourself to actually demonstrate how the peer review process has not been compromised, and demonstrate that it is intellectually honest and sound. In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, you know the problem exists, but cannot actually admit to such as it would undermine your own argument.
You're saying educated people are biased. That amuses me. But you actually say nothing more. Peer review is about quality control. If you think a paper is actually worthless you will refer directly to methodological flaw. You can't do that as you neither understand basic statistics or have the reading glasses on. I achieve the obvious. Step 1: read the paper. Step 2: look for flaw. Step 3: review other research that has tested the same data and methodological issues. That you're ignorant of basic literature review methods is clear. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. We all have time constraints! If you don't think gun control is an important issue, then yes you won't have read the evidence. But that's not you is it? Instead, despite research being crucial to your argument, you make blanket claims designed only to sneer at the educated and to ignore the research. It isn't cunning. It will work mind you, given your chums do also embrace pro-truthing! Isn't that dreary?
The only thing dreary is your squalid "Slut Shaming" and use of Bully techniques, no one here is against Education, I spent enough time at it, however, just because a person has a P.h.D. and gets a flock of peers to agree to a published paper does not make it The Gospel Truth according to Oxford, your faith in subjective research does not trump my experience in real life. I currently live in a Neighborhood where many of my neighbors have spent much time in Prison, so I am somewhat the odd Duck. You constantly reference gun effect as it relates to crime and criminal activity and I simply refuse your simplistic solutions, Well, if criminals use guns as in less than 10% of the population, We can conclude gun effect is a negative on the entire population. Something New Scotland Yard applies to all U.K. Citizens as far as the lack of licenses to carry a concealed firearm whilst in public. The U.S. is a huge ongoing study in Gun Effects and the tide turned when a majority of States became "Shall Issue" as far as concealed carry. Finally when LEOSA was made law, State regulations concerning qualified Law enforcement Agents, Police Officers and carry of Firearms are now regulated at the Federal level, and States carry is no longer restricted to an Officer or Agents State. Crime and Criminal activity references in those studies are irrelevant and immaterial to the greater good firearms serve in preserving life of those that benefit from legal concealed carry of firearms.
None of which does anything to change the fact that it is apparently not possible for yourself to address the fact that the peer review process is meaningless in terms of integrity. The following article is an example of such. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6 One hundred and seven separate accounts of research papers, supposedly peer reviewed, all rescinded because the ones who apparently did the reviewing committed intellectual fraud. The fact that there is even a retraction watch website does not bode well for the notion of the peer review process being valid. https://retractionwatch.com/
You don't need a PhD to get published. I know a few who did it for the crack. The research is based on large data sets. The idea that your diddy opinion is more important is uneducated. I'm not interested in tabloidism. You already know that. I constantly refer to the evidence. That you would try to dismiss it only informs me that you're not actually interested in reality. You sound like a comic script here! Happy to hear your 'shall issue' evidence. I don't want your tabloidism and its race cobblers. So more guns=less crime is supported now? Evidence other than uneducated 'cos I say its so'?
Explain how Lott misapplied a dummy variable in his analysis. For that mater explain what a dummy variable is and how it’s used in econometric regression analysis, and comment on if the use of dummy variable is useful in analysis. I have my own issues with Lott’s methods, but the use of a dummy variable isn’t one of them. like the words ‘Mass shooting’ are loaded to evoke a vague emotionally charged image, one that associated the word Mass with not within it’s context definition as applied by the FBI, but with the most extreme popularized image and meaning. Your repeated use of ‘Dummy Varaible’ is designed to evoke an image of poor methodology on Lott’s work as gospel, counting on people making an assumption that the prefix ‘Dummy’ is consistent with the popular meaning associated with the word dummy and not the definition as applied in regression analysis. Unless you don’t know, don’t explain in simple terms to those you are arguing with, it is an indicator of deliberate deception and a strategy, thorougly prevalent in your comments that you have some secret, superior knowledge over those uneducated progun types which you revel in dismissing. But, then, you aren’t as unbiased as you claim, or you’d share in the criticisms of studies such as Hemenway’s.
