Master Don Juan
- Aug 6, 2007
- Reaction score
bradd80 said:No the studies all conclude that ALL of Levitt`s methodology is incorrect and that he messed up. What he did with his second study is the same as what he did with his first, which is fudge the numbers and interpret them in a way which all the experts agree was wrong.
In addition, a 2008 study by criminologist James Alan Fox showed homicides by blacks between the ages of 14 and 17 had jumped 34 percent in the last 15 to 20 years.
http://www.jfox.neu.edu/Documents/Fox Swatt Homicide Report Dec 29 2008.pdf
The number of crimes for white people in the same age range did not increase.
Levitt claimed in his study that legalizing abortion led to a major drop in murder and other violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. He theorized that the babies who were victimized by abortion would have been more likely to commit crimes.
But Fox’s study showed that violent crime in the black community had actually gone up in the last decade — not down.
Yet, if Levitt’s hypothesis was true, crime should have gone down significantly in the black community because of a higher abortion rate.
This is the last time I`m going to say this: Levitt fvcked up his study, all the experts disagree with him, and no matter how many times he tries to fudge his numbers and redo his study he will still be wrong.
The research done after Donohue and Levitt’s article was published in 2001 actually disproves the abortion-crime theory and casts much doubt on whether even a minor link exists at all.
Bottom line is, Levitt is free to interpret his statistics any way he wants, and of course he is going to do it in a way which either makes him money or saves his career.
But the holes in his study, reinforced by the opinions of expert economists and statisticians, as well as the admissions of Levitt himself, show that his study is full of mistakes and no longer carries any degree of credibility.
Next time Danger, research the studies you use in your arguments and make sure that (a) most experts don`t disagree with it and (b) the author himself did not admit to making lots of mistakes in conducting his study.
Fox's study does not refute Levitt's new study whatsover. Instead it cherry picks individual datapoints, missing the overall trend.
Pay particular attention to chart 3 and chart 4 on page 12 in Fox's study that you just linked. They actually buttress Levitt's data and conclusion, especially when violent crime per 100,000 plummets in the early 90's all the way to today. The rise in crime in the late 2000's you cite is barely noticeable on the chart compared to the previous 18 years. Look at the forest, not the tree.
I repeat again, Levitt made a mistake in his initial study, but he addressed it after the fact here.
I do notice that you continue your defamation campaign though with the "Fudging" comments I bolded above. I'm not surprised.
Of course, if you read Levitt's update, you would further know that he addressed the issues and the conclusion came up the same. The link you just posted only supports the Levitt's theory.
I do know that you won't bother repeating yourself with more character assassination attempts, it's not working. Until your next post, I will patiently wait for the link you have that discredits Levitt's updated dataset, not the first one.