--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Kinda like losing various geniuses and other "luminaries" through > > > the 40 million+ abortions performed in the USA since Roe v. Wade... > > > > > > Well, maybe not geniuses. The dramatic decrease in the crime rate in > > the 90's has been shown to be primarily the result of Roe v. Wade. > > > > ***************** > > That was a statistical inference made by the author of "Freakonomics," > but there are certainly alternate credible explanations: > > http://www.slate.com/id/33569/entry/33571/ > > http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm
Thanks for the cites. Did you read Freakonomics, or Levitts academic papers upon which it it based? (I did the former, not the later yet.) He made more than a statistical inference, if by that you are suggesting that he showed a mere interesing correlation. He did much more than that, he established a strong econometric case for causality. Your first cite is Levitt himself explaining some aspects of his research. So that is in support of his work, not an alternate credible explanation. The second cite is a critique of Levitt, much of it personal attack, much of it not even on Levitt but on Bill Bennett, by the film critic of the American Conservative. While a film critic might also be well trained in econometrics, it appears fairly certain tht Mr. Sailer is not. Thus an amateur throwing up some bivariate correlations to refute a much more detailed multi-variate, multi-study analysis by a leading economist (Levitt was cited/awarded as the most promising economist under 40) from a leading uinversity (particularly in economics) does not at first glance provide much credance that there are "certainly alternate credible explanations". There may be strong alternative evidence. But if you read the book, you know Levitt goes through the top ten or so cited factors and shows how and why the studies showed that these had lesser, in some cases, no effect on crime. While Sailer's personal attacks on Levitt appear to have some root in jealousy (he got rich and I didn't is the thrust of several of his points) I look forward to a more detailed reading of his piece to see if he has any points of merit. Bob, what points of Sailers did you find particularly compelling and substantive-- relative to Levitt's work? And how did you conclude that these are "certainly alternate credible explanations".? Which arguements did you find credible and why? Credible in a "gee that sounds kinda reasonable and plausible, in a first read, not particularly familiar with the literature sort of way"? Or in a "that looks like a strong econometric refutation of Levitt's work sort of way"? > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
