WashPost: "Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics"

[Guntalk]

When you pretend to be someone you are not, you are not telling the truth. (Actors and authors writing under pen names are exceptions.)

In other words, to some extent, you are telling a lie.

Anytime you do something you don't want people to know about, perhaps it's a good idea to not do it.

In this case, I'm afraid, he has handed the gun grabbers all the ammo they need to discredit him. No, it doesn't really reflect on his work, but it does reflect on him.

Very unfortunate.

 

[braindead0]

For such a smart man, he sure has made a mess here. I think he could have done this with impunity had he never made an outright lie (claiming to have taken his classes, etc).. If he had just dodged those issues, and stuck to the debate/facts perhaps this wouldn't have been such a big thing.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You guys should read some of the debates on Usenet... Lott was not only inventing a fabricated history to praise his own work under a pseudonym, the arguments made under the pseudonym were occasionally very poor.

He did however offer solid enough work that there is now several people investigating his thesis. These reports can be used in lieu of Lott if you wish to avoid a credibility discussion:

http://www.guncite.com/lott_more_papers.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

 

[dave]

What's the problem here? Sure, the guy did something stupid. Very stupid. But his work is still good. His facts are still just that, facts. He did good research and that's what we should focus on, the research.

If, when debating an anti, the topic strays to the author's antics simply stear it back toward the topic. Remind them that other authors have been discredited because their work was a lie, not for what they did afterward.

Above all, do not defend Lott. Tell the truth. Say that what he did was stupid, because it was. Then return to the topic at hand. Ask them what there is "about his work" that is a lie. Don't let things turn into a debate about Lott, keep them focused on his work.

 

[OF]

Indeed a dark day for RKBA. What was he thinking!?

I'm stunned.

- Gabe

 

[mack]

As far as has been determined there is not a problem with his work at all. Therefore, I think it is somewhat silly to suggest that the sky is falling and Lott's work is now useless. Yes, Lott did a dumb thing in an online debate, so what. That is all it was, why should we oblige the antis by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

All this handringing and the sky is falling tone simply makes more out of the issue than it appears to be. Talk about Lott hurting himself - what some suggest or imply here is that Lott's work be thrown under the bus - talk about shooting oneself in the foot - why the heck should we do that. The liberal socialists have a habit of always trying to attack those they disagree with personally, especially when they can't debate the facts. If they try to discredit Lott's work by attacking Lott personally - then simply point that out and ask why they aren't comfortable debating his work.

 

[Viking6]

just another brick in the wall. As someone once said "you can't unring a bell!", right or wrong, he is now probably ineffective.

Right, Mr. Hat?!

 

[publius]

This is not just about Lott's personal reputation, nor is it just about his creation of a fictitious advocate. Creating Mary strikes me as pathetic, unnecessary, and spineless, but not a big deal in the end. Michelle Malkin calls it "beyond creepy."

http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30873

Whatever. My problem with Lott now is his "the dog ate my research" story. I laughed when Bellesiles told that story because I didn't believe it for an instant. It's not so funny now, for the same reason. Incorrectly citing Gary Kleck is another problem. These aren't questions about his tactics or about Mary. It's about his data and how careful he is with the facts.

Lott says he's trying to replicate the lost experiment. Even if it confirms the lost one, I'll be more skeptical this time, and I'm someone who has repeatedly cited Lott's work. I want to believe him, but I just can't. Entire research projects don't disappear without a trace in a computer crash, even if you're stupid enough to fail to back up such a large amount of important work.

 

[Bahadur]

What's the problem here? Sure, the guy did something stupid. Very stupid. But his work is still good. His facts are still just that, facts. He did good research and that's what we should focus on, the research.

Well, let's look at the issue at the following levels, shall we?

1. PR. At the public relations level, there is NO separation between the man and his work. If the man is tarnished, so is the work.

2. The Work - the Research. While every source has to be meticulously documented, research at Lott's level still relies on some degree of trust that the researcher is conscientious about what he presents and documents. If the credibility of the author is shaken, that trust is no longer there and the work is discredited. At the minimum, the researcher cannot function effectively due to the extraordinary efforts it will now take to document and support his research.

3. The Principle. The theoretical principle of research is integrity, to truth. The idea of extending knowledge is about discovering more truth about the world. If the researcher is unprincipled and is prone to lying and other actions that are "beyond creepy," we run into the "does the ends justify the means" problem. Besides, do we, as a movement, be associated with someone who lies and is "beyond creepy"? For me, the answer would be a resounding "No."