Professor quits in probe of gun book (Gun Hating Liar)

Washington Times ^ | October 28th, 2002 | Robert Stacy McCain

[Sabertooth]

Michael Bellesiles, the history professor who wrote that firearms were rare in early America, has resigned from Atlanta's Emory University after an investigation found he "willingly misrepresented the evidence"in his award-winning book.

The three-person committee

[doug from upland]

"Arming America" contradicted previous historical scholarship by saying that Americans in the colonial era and early 1800s had few guns — and that common beliefs about armed farmers and frontiersman were myths.

====================================

The so-called professor I guess doesn't understand that in those days there was no Albertson's or Ralph's at which to go shopping for meat. People killed things themselves for food. They usually did not do it with their bare hands.

[gatex]

"...how can one exaggerate the data?"

"exaggerate --to magnify beyond the limits of truth..."

Didn't Bellesilles magnify beyond the limit of truth the the use of the records to imply that gun ownership was at a low level?

[cinFLA]

I am sure there must be an opening for him in either Berkely or some NE school.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

In a statement released Friday, Mr. Bellesiles defended his book, refused to concede wrongdoing and criticized Emory's inquiry as "just plain unfair" for focusing on "one small part" of "Arming America."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Great post!!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Where is he going to get his next job?

He'll be paid to show up at the next anti-America rally, just like thew rest of them.

[rdb3]

BTTT!

[ozzymandus]

Gee, I can't wait for this to be widely reported by the mainstream RAT lapdog media!

[Carry_Okie]

Agreed. The discipline here on that title posting is very poor. When I do my searches I pick only one word out of the title for each pass. In this case, the first would have been "Professor," and the second "book." Because they come up by date it isn't as bad as one might think.

[Swordmaker]

"exaggeration of data." Scholarly criticism indeed: how can one exaggerate the data? Manipulate, perhaps, but not exaggerate.

On the contrary... it is very easy. Even in a "scientific" study it would be easy to count 5 instances of an event and report 23. 5 is accurate... 23 is an exageration... not a manipulation.

And, there is nothing wrong with "random" gathering of data: in fact, this is quite scientific; it's called random sampling. These "scholars" speak of this is if it were a self-evident falsehood.

Random is as random does. In this instance, it would be like measuring temperatures in random locales and then making the statement that the measurements had some validity to a specific location. Much effort is made in truly "scientific" random gathering of data to assure that it IS random... and not merely spotty.

[harpseal]

This is great news but the a**hole will merely resurface at some other institution of Leftist Learning and claim it was a political hit job at Emory.

Still it is nice to see.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Jim Noble]

Not done yet-Columbia will have to retract the Bancoft Prize.

[jocon307]

"Not done yet-Columbia will have to retract the Bancoft Prize"

You took the words right out of my keyboard! I'm very, very curious to see if they do this. I also have to question how well they check out the candidates for this prestigious prize. Evidently a lot of the problem with his data was that it included San Francisco probate records that were lost long ago in the fire following the earthquake. I saw one person quoted as saying, if he found those records we'd all like to know where. I'd think referencing this data would have been a red flag to any historian familiar with the era and with using records of this type. I'm sure a large cache of public records like that has been sorely missed by historians over the last century. There's really been a big flap over this and it great, because it shows how the left gets aways with lying, only this time NOT! This guy'll be lucky to end up teaching in a High School in NYC. Columbia really has to withdraw the Bancroft, just to preserve its value.

[FreedomPoster]

>>Columbia really has to withdraw the Bancroft, just to preserve its value.

If they routinely give it to bozos like Bellesiles, I daresay it has little value to begin with.

[Flint]

I have never seen the location that he selected be questioned. He did most of his East Coast research in New England and West Coast research in San Francisco. Both were very settled areas during the time he based his research. Both areas were a merchant and farm economy. I wouldn't expect that Joe hardware store worker would be very well armed. I would expect if you went a little farther afield, say the Ohio River Valley, the Georgia Fronter, the settlers in the Piedmont of North Carolina for example. There you would find the populace well armed and using their means of self protection every day, a rifle never more than arms reach away 24/7.

[TopQuark]

That is not what I said, and I know that you are correct.

What I addressed was the language of the author's critics that betrays their ignorance.

[TopQuark]

to imply that gun ownership was at a low level?

That is exactly right: implications, conclusions, projections may be pushed "beyond limit."

But not data. Data are what they are: numbers 5,14,1,9, for instance. You cannot exaggerate them; they are what they are.

It is OK if a nonprofessional may not know the difference, but you would think that professors should. Unless they are historians and journalists, apparently.

[TopQuark]

TQ: "exaggeration of data." On the contrary... it is very easy. Even in a "scientific" study it would be easy to count 5 instances of an event and report 23. 5 is accurate... 23 is an exageration... not a manipulation.

You have a point here: technically, it is a falsification by exaggeration. In science, without quotation marks, exaggeration usually pertains to over-reaching, inadvertent application of some implication to situations where it does not apply (extrernal validity).

A misstatement of data is falsification: what matters for purity of his approach is not that 5 was recorded as 23 --- he could have recorded it as 1: what matters is that it is falsehood. This is different from saying, "I think the author exaggerates the importance of..."

Much effort is made in truly "scientific" random gathering of data to assure that it IS random... and not merely spotty. That is correct, but what does it have to do with what I said? Whatever research methods dictate, the esteemed referees should speak professionally about them. They did not, because one can make a career as a historian without ever taking a course in research methods. That was my point.

[TopQuark]

Not that it this issue matters much, but I thought I would make a retraction.

TQ: "exaggeration of data." On the contrary... it is very easy. Even in a "scientific" study it would be easy to count 5 instances of an event and report 23. 5 is accurate... 23 is an exageration... not a manipulation.

Data is the number recorded: 5 is not, but 23 is. Data may be inaccurate, and the inaccuracy may have been introduced inadvertently or deliberatly (falsification). In your example, what has been exaggerated is not data bur the frequency of the event in question. The datum (23) is false and exaggerate the true frequency (5). The datum itself is not exaggerated, however: that which it supposedly represents is.

Data are what they are.

[Swordmaker]

This is different from saying, "I think the author exaggerates the importance of... ...Whatever research methods dictate, the esteemed referees should speak professionally about them."

All in all, Quark, you and I are on exactly the same page.

The problem here is equivocation... by the authors of the critique, who are doing everything they can to avoid saying that Bellesiles is a fraudulent liar. Instead of saying point blank that Bellesiles FALSIFIED his data, they are bending over backwards and kissing their respective assets to avoid really making a blunt statement of fact that might offend someone.

The amazing thing is that they even did this much... my, oh my, they used moderately strong language... and actually said "Tsk,tsk."

[Swordmaker]

Data are what they are.

Too true... garbage in, garbage out.