3 ms·
If you would actually read the paper you would find that all your remarks have been accounted for.
by PeterStuer 7y ago
If you would actually read the paper you would find that all your remarks have been accounted for.
- dekhn 7y agothe article is paywalled, also, since I have plenty of experience in this field, I do not think my remarks were "accounted for", rather they probably wrote a couple hand-wavy sentences about how they corrected for SES, but didn't really. Edit: found a copy of the paper that wasn't paywalled, read the whole thing, and found their attempts to correct for bias wanting (section 4.2). " Overall, our heterogeneity results indicate the most important explanatory factor in the relationship between pollution and crime is age, and the results are not ameliorated by higher incomes." uh, ok. if you want to defend this paper go ahead but I've already read enough to know these folks started with a biased belief, carelessly analzyed the data in a way that supported their beliefs, and escalated the results into something that sounded far more significant and certain than their data shows.