A lot of readers have suggested that I am not a helpful blogger because I refer people to other studies for data to support my arguments. These critics are probably right. Were I devoted to blogging full time, I would quote all the data and summarize all of the studies, thereby getting nothing else done. I had assumed when I started my blog messages that people would pause, think, and look up facts. A few have, but most seem to have opinions they like to express quickly. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it doesn't advance knowledge. Let me join the opinion parade by offering a few of my own: This country imprisons too many people on drug charges with little observable effect. A better solution can be found in Hawaii, where a judge uses his powers to keep drug users in treatment programs (it's called Project Hope; look it up). The costs of crime are hard to measure (so are the costs of confinement). The reader who does not want to drive five miles to find the book, Prison State, that discusses this in detail is wasting my time and his. It is not hard to study deterring crime, but I can't imagine trying to teach someone in a blog how to do a regression analysis. I wish I could do that, but it would take time, and blog commenters seem not to have much time.
Now for a few more facts, but I warn you that to believe my assertions you will actually have to go out and read something. Intensive Probation: This is a good idea, but so far the studies of it have not suggested it lowers the crime rate. I wish it did, because it is cheaper than prison. The chief study, done at RAND, compared probationers under intensive supervision with similar ones not under such control. There as no difference in their crime rates while under supervision. There are two possible explanations for this: Either there was no difference in crime rates, or those under intensive supervision had more crimes noticed by their probation officers.
The effect of prison on crime rates: The chief study is by William Spelman and appears in the book, The Crime Drop in America, edited by Alfred Blumstein and Joel Wallman (2000).
The problem of the mentally ill in prison: This is a very large problem, caused in part by the dramatic drop in the number of mentally ill people in mental institutions. De-institutionalizing the mentally ill may have been a good idea, but the price we pay for it is to have a big increased of the mentally ill in prison. I would prefer that they be in mental health care institutions, but our society does not let that happen.
Abortion and crime rates: Steven Levitt is one of the authors of the study claiming, on the basis of a study of crime rates in five states where abortion was legal before Roe v. Wade and the 47 states where it became legal after Roe v. Wade, that abortion reduced the number of "unwanted children" and hence helped lower the crime rate. Levitt may be right, but to show that it is first necessary to count abortions in many states where, though it was illegal before Roe, occurred anyway to protect the health of the mother, and to control for other factors that affect the crime besides the number of "unwanted" children.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Can I Be a Meaningful Blogger?
- Drug offenders in prison:
- Deterring crime:
- What Do We Get From Prison?
- James Q. Wilson Guest-Blogging:
That's just an obnoxious statement.
Volokh's post contrasts with this one in such a stark manner. He cites his primary sources and links to them. He provides detailed analysis based on the sources and permits a skeptical/curious reader to review what he's discussing.
Wilson provides declarations from on high. Don't follow how that is correct? Too bad.
It's really disappointing.
FWIW, I don't mind the ex cathedra approach, and I certainly appreciate the links to supporting documentation.
Nope, you must spoon-feed everything to them!
I'd find it very hard to support something called "Project Hope".
It's that or vote for McCain. =)
I will say this: Prof. Wilson's blogging, along with some of the links posted by commentors regarding his American History textbook, has prompted me to consider rereading 'The Moral Sense,' a book I loved in college and often recommended to friends. I'm starting to wonder if that admiration was a product of youthful ignorance.
I’m sorry you didn’t take full advantage of the opportunity that blogging provides. I’ve read your articles on NRO and have found you to be a generally talented writer. I hope that you try this again in the future and that when you do, you’re able to build positively on the experience that Professor Volokh provided you.
I am sorry but I find it hard to see any 'hope' in the incarceration of people for putting stuff in their bodies. Whether it is better than the current practise of slapping a fine/ putting them in prison is rather uninteresting. Besides, as someone noted, it is very hard to support something called "Project Hope".
Quite honestly, that sentence is in bad taste and probably sheds greater light into why some commenters have found your posts unhelpful than your explanation.
Except for the fact that this 'big increase' is nonetheless MUCH smaller than the number of people who are no longer institutionalised. Mentally ill people go to prison only if they are dangerous or commit crimes. I'd rather that non-violent people whose brain works a little differently from you stay free than in an institution.
First, its a new medium for him, but a lot of people were criticizing him from all angles soon after his first post. Some of the criticisms are valid, but it is easy to see how it might contribute to Wilson's harsher tone now.
Secondly, people are pretending that every post at Volokh is always fully formed and annotated. In fact, plenty of the posts are short conversation starters. It seemed like that is what Prof. Wilson was trying to do, with a series of short, one-idea posts.
Seems like every time there is a guest blogger they get slammed for not being as thorough or responsive as Eugene and the other Conspirators. But the fact is the tenured bloggers here are very experienced with the format in general and specifically with the expectations of the readership. (i.e., they've spoiled us)
"[D]eclarations from on high" shouldn't really be a problem, it is a standard rhetorical style and people who cannot adjust to it are the one's with the problem. Qualifying, sourcing &c distract from the flow of the argument, when the emphasis is on the logic of the argument such devices are a good means of distracting from weak logic but when the purpose is to discover flaws in the logic they are counter productive. They are not to be taken as Divine revelations of fact but as starting premises upon which an argument is built, disprove the premise and the argument is weakened, an understood part of the style.
Many guest bloggers here on the VC generally ignore comments and commenters' criticisms altogether. It's almost as if some of the guests plan out from which section of their book they will excerpt each day's post in advance, and then blissfully ignore any comments and objections or counterarguments raised on the blog.
Prof. Wilson, just by virtue of being responsive, is a far better blogger than many of other VC guests.
If, instead, people are just offended that someone would make assertions that are contrary to their own strongly held opinions without spoon-feeding them exhaustive analysis... then you're asking too much.
bjr26 writes this: Even assuming the validity of the numbers, the argument is misleading and logically flawed, and I would argue "it doesn't advance knowledge" in any respect.
... with no detail or citations to anything in support. I'm offended. Hang thy head in shame.
It's an American Government textbook for crying out loud.
Many of them also end up on the streets as part of the homeless population. I do not regard that as an unambiguous improvement in their situation either.
I think its a fair request to support your arguments with data.
But it is more persuasive to cite evidence to support the claims. While hot links would be nice, a simple reference or names of authors (as in the book reference in this post) would be pretty helpful in tracking down this research.
He said, self-referentially.
I'm somewhat in the middle on this: I'd appreciate links because I'm not an expert in this field at all, and so might not have a good idea where to start. On the other hand, this is "free ice cream" --- maybe we should let Prof Wilson write what he damned pleases? Considering what we pay?
Perseus, my mistake regarding the American Government -- not history -- textbook. I guess I was focused less on the book's title and more on the egregious legal and factual mistakes contained therein.
I don't think this accurately captures what the peanut gallery is seeking. The Conspirators have adopted a format of citing one or two pieces of data, e.g. a graph, then analyzing and discussing the impact of that data. Occasional cites to other academics may be included, particularly if available on SSRN. I do think Prof. Wilson has much to share and teach, and that some commenters went overboard in expecting footnotes for every sentence. Links to the core data are sufficient: Prof. Wilson has earned the right to let any subsequent analysis stand on its own two feet. As a reader, I hope that he will continue posting.
1. Prison State.
2. An Intro to Regression Analysis.
3. Regression Analysis in Deterrence of Crime.
Re: the Rand study on ISP..."Intensive supervision probation did not decrease the frequency or seriousness of new arrests but did increase the incidence of technical violations and jail terms. Stepped-up surveillance and frequent drug tests increased incarceration rates and drove up program and court costs compared with routine supervision. Development of an array of sentencing options to create a graduated sentencing system should justify continued development and testing of ISP programs."
So far, parole and probation programs are generally a failure, if the goal is to prevent further criminal conduct and recidivism. (They may be considered a success if the goal is to reduce prison crowding) Although I have no confidence that ISP may be engineered to succeed in the future, there's no reason not to try. As the OP noted, the increased supervision under the ISP meant more violations discovered. Logical and expected if you're a cynic/realist.
Link here.
It is easier for lawyer/scholars like Eugene to blog because the law has been well indexed since the 19th century and online (in a sense) since the late '70s.
Lawyers can easily link.
Thanks to Amazon and Google, other scholars will soon be able to join them. Prison State is actually available as a Search Inside This Book on Amazon.
The time constricted can at least get an excerpt and if they are truly dedicated can read the whole thing by continual searching.
One thing you might consider is at least linking to the Amazon or Google page of a referenced book. For example, one of my favorites Private Police by Shalloo from 1933 is here.
At least it will get some commentators off your back.
Given your track record, I question your qualifications to make such judgments.
"Except for the fact that this 'big increase' is nonetheless MUCH smaller than the number of people who are no longer institutionalized. Mentally ill people go to prison only if they are dangerous or commit crimes. I'd rather that non-violent people whose brain works a little differently from you stay free than in an institution."
I think the downside to this is that the core homeless population, that which is not susceptible to intervention, is a pool of serious emotional and mental illness (and substance abuse). In the past, these people may have been periodically institutionalized (or jailed for conduct no longer considered criminal), given basic nutrition and hygiene, and then released. That is no longer an option.
As I type this, I notice Perseus beat me to it. So I'll stop here.
If you have to ask that question, then the answer is no.
An OP Troll, how refreshing. If those (comparably) mild criticisms get you in that much of a snit, I can't say I'll miss you.
As to advancing knowledge, there are many paths to that goal. While a well reasoned argument can be very helpful, seeing 20 people post that they *feel* you're wrong also tells me something (at least about gut reactions on the subject).
A typical horror story here.
Unfortunately, every wonderful idea like this has to somehow circumvent the inertia and general ineffectiveness of the government machinery.
Yes. Well informed opinion may be the best thing about blogs.
I have considerable sympathy with Professor Wilson. Argument by abundance of hypertext links is tiresome. I am thankful for links, but people seem to think a link is proof.
So: Can Professor Wilson be a meaningful blogger without hypertext links?
Yes. In this medium, hypertext links are the norm. In the medium of poetry, capitalization is the norm. But e.e. cummings did without.
Yours,
Wince
I respectfully submit that being adding worthwhile comments means dealing with what you're given rather than swarming like the peanut gallery from an irc channel that's following a post.
Honestly, guest bloggers here are treated like substitute teacher. If he/she has something worthwhile to say, as with Professor Wilson, think about it even if it's not presented in the standard fashion and move on. The treatment guest bloggers are given here is often appalling.
I do believe I'm being called out. To clarify, Professor: commenting at The Volokh Conspiracyis not, in fact, my day job. I read this site at work and at home in the middle of the night; I have neither the time nor the energy nor the inclination to analyze your posts with the same rigor as I do professional publications in my field. There's some excellent advice amid the abuse directed at you on this thread, Professor, but if your belief is that the commentariat should be willing to drop what they're doing, head to the local library, and spend a few hours researching in order to be able to comment intelligently on your claims, perhaps you'd find a different setting more congenial to your style.
I do understand regression analysis, by the way, and Mark Twain's famous dictum - the one about "lies, damned lies, and statistics" - is quite thoroughly applicable to the field. I take any claim that "regression analysis shows X" with quite a few grains of salt. Teaching regression in a blog post might be a little much, but at least you could link to the studies? JSTOR, maybe?
Volokh himself seems to manage it. You don't need to 'blog full time'; you just need practice with the style. Someone really ought to write a Strunk and White for bloggers :)
Ah, see, there's your problem. :)
I already gave CFI's (tendentious) report a quick read and responded to a couple of their criticisms in the previous post that mentioned it.
"The Center for Inquiry is a daring new concept. Although modern world civilization is based upon the achievements of science and technology, until this time there has been no authoritative and credible voice defending the scientific outlook in examining religion, human values, and the borderlands of science. If the naturalistic outlook is to supplant the ancient mythological narratives of the past, it needs a new institution devoted to its articulation and dramatization to the public. The Center for Inquiry is that institution. "
They're modest, too.
From the CFI web site, here, they have participated or filed friend of the court briefs in lawsuits
a) in favor of California finding the ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional,
b) against the Florida prison system from using a faith-based organization to provide drug counseling within the prisons,
c) a similar lawsuit in Iowa,
d) against the display of the 10 Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse,
e) against San Diego's large cross on public property,
f) challenged the Federally funded Faith Based Initiatives
There's more of similar dint.
These are all perfectly respectable positions, but also clearly part of a liberal agenda, which might include bashing conservative authors of text books that fail to conform to "supplant(ing) the ancient mythological narratives of the past."
Er, he may have a few other things to do with his time. And may not be up on html encoding. And may (as so I) come from an era in which telling somebody that there is a book on the subject, read it, was not an unrealistic request. (I made something of a transition, but then I'm a techno-nerd. When fax machines came in, I'd been in practice ten years.)
to say that levitt does not do this is an understatement.-he seems to waive off all explanations of crime offered by criminologists in a few paragraphs of his study.
Let me instead address the more fundamental question: are you as bad at arguing your case as your commenters seem to think?
I am in fact a mathematician, so I know exactly what regression analysis is -- it is a ten dollar word for averaging. That's basically all statistics does is average. A case could easily be made that averaging in fact destroys much valuable information. If you want to argue otherwise, perhaps you could let us know exactly why thousands of temperature measurements around the world need to be reduced to a single "global" average. Do you claim that this is more accurate?
The motivation behind statistical inference is pretty much aboveboard -- there is no reason why we should not be trying to get a better understanding of the masses of data confronting us. However, it can easily be abused. No doubt you go out of your way not to abuse it, but I would hope that you are reflective enough to acknowledge the existence of the problem, and understand that you may not be exempt from it, at least in the ears of your audience.
One symptom of statistical abuse is wrapping things up in incomprehensible jargon, then claiming that one must be an accredited expert (i.e. somebody you approve of) to understand it. There are a lot of people in your audience, and while they may not have the knowledge or ability to understand the details, they are all fully equipped with a Bullshit-o-meter. There's quite a lot of statistical sleight-of-hand out there, and if you don't want people to think that's what you're practicing, then you really need to avoid the academic wording of your arguments.
One other detail. I see no reason why anyone should have to travel 5 miles to a library to read a book that you claim is a "chief" source. There are in fact quite a lot of intelligent and well-informed people around who seldom read the sort of books that you claim are indispensable. Are they in fact indispensable? Would you like to tell us (without talking down to us) why these particular books are indispensable? Are you even capable of it?
Perseus apparently disagrees, and uses the textbook in his Intro to American Government class. In his view -- and now I'm quoting from his other comment -- Wilson "is correct to characterize as 'activist' scientists who claim that global warming will be harmful to humans and that governments should act now since modern scientist qua scientist has no business making such 'value judgments.'"
There's not much that I can do to refute this argument -- if you think scientists who believe global warming are "activists", then Wilson's textbook is perfectly appropriate. But if instead you think this perspective falls far from the mainstream of the scientific community, as CFI (and I) believe, you might start to wonder about the veracity of the rest of Wilson's work.
THAT, plus make the barest mention of (*GASP*) "the mentally disabled" is the BIG SIN Prof. Wilson committed here. Apparently, Eugene forgot to warn Prof. Wilson there is a VERY STRONG ANTI-DISABILITY LIBERTARIAN SENTIMENT AMONG A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF COMMENT-POSTERS on this blog. It is a LOT easier to make Hannibal Lechter Foo Foo profiles about other posters who are disagreed with for their content viewpoint opinions than actually *GASP* "pause, think, and look up facts" to "advance knowldge." A skill apparently lost upon the advent of the A/B/C/D Multistate Bar Examination. As I was very recently told, don't expect any free marketplace of ideas to change the hard-fast-closed minds of some comment-posters here.
But I, myself, find Prof. Wilson quite refreshing. He should not let the chilly welcome get him down. There are those who really want to learn, and those who would rather control all political and legal thought.
I do have a comment to make about the cause of the huge numbers of mentally disabled in American's prisons, as follows:
1. A majority of mentally disabled people cannot communicate effectively in a hard paper copy format, but instead require paperless electronic Internet formats either typed or spoken through a Dragon Naturally-Speaking-type assistive technology -- and may likewise require such formats to use screen readers;
2. My extensive research on State and Federal Courts and their Internet websites (which I have not yet completed), demonstrates that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY (1.) of State Courts (with the exception of Alabama) do NOT provide a paperless electronic Internet format entranceway to their Courthouses, and (2.) of Federal Courts do not provide the existing CM/ECF paperless electronic Internet format entranceway to their Courthouses to mentally disabled non-attorneys. The Michigan State Bar is EXEMPLARY when it comes to disability access as a visit to their Internet website will show;
3. Jails and prisons, and the lawyers who represent accuseds and convicts, RAMPANTLY VIOLATE the paperless electronic Internet format entranceway to Courthouses and lawyers offices -- w/o such meaningful access, Duh, hordes of mentally disabled people who are very likely INNOCENT become a victim of an inaccessible legal system that cannot and does not deliver Justice;
4. The procedural default and exhaustion rules for habeas relief are a discriminatory punishing device when applied to a mentally disabled convict who was (1.) not provided with paperless electronic Internet format access to file pleadings, raise issues and preserve claims, and/or (2.) not provided CART realtime transcription to operate the timely objection process during the trial process. It is a sad, cruel joke on millions of mentally disabled convicts to suggest their habeas relief should be barred because they were PREVENTED from meaningfully litigating their defense at trial in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (State Court) or U.S. Judicial Conference Communication Disability Auxiliary Aids and Services Policy (Federal Court);
5. Mentally disabled people are also thrown into our jails and prisons because no one has seriously looked at how the Americans With Disabilities Act's express preemption statute (superceding all state law and "other federal laws" -- DOES THE AEDPA SOUND FAMILIAR? AN "OTHER FEDERAL LAW," Hello), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12201(b) may alter parts of how the AEDPA continues to be applied;
6. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (or in forma pauperis statute) likewise relegates MILLIONS of very likely innocent mentally disabled people to our prisons due to NO ONE (Do I smell an "ineffective assistance" claim?) raising the Americans With Disabilities Act's express preemption statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12201(b) (superceding (partially repealing) "other federal laws" -- LIKE THE PLRA Prohibition on claims involving mental injury claims that outright conflicts on Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act's mental disability anti-discirmination protections);
7. Then there is the nice little Supreme Court decision about how prisoners must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing prison grievances -- which is all dandy so long as the prisoner is not disabled!!! For all those mentally disabled prisoners who require paperless electronic Internet formats -- this also extends to Sec. 508-style electronically accessible prison administrative grievance forms -- in sum, if a mentally disabled prisoner cannot get paperless electronic Interent format Sec. 508-style accessible forms, he/she is SOL and will ROT IN PRISON barred from bringing a lawsuit;
8. What about the insane archaic "insanity" defense that is predicated on about a 1700s caveman understanding of mental disabilities? Over and under-inclusive and basically nonsensical. Why aren't there MANY MORE ineffective assistance claims brought predicated on the distinction between (1.) people with mental disabilities who cannot receive information in a realistic way -- e.g. receptive language disorder involving severe perceptual distortions, hallucinations) = the category who should be NG by reason of "insanity" vs. (2.) people with mental or neurological disabilities who have perfect ability to receive information in a realistic way (included are people who are blind, vision, or hearing impaired who require scree readers, Large Print fonts, and CART realtime transcription, sign language interpreters, etc) and those with expressive language disorders (requiring facilitated communication such as a paperless electornic internet format Dragon NaturallySpeaking assistive technology device) = not "insane";
9. And where are all the disparate impact challenges to throwing such a HUGE percewntage of mentally disabled people into American jails and prisons due to the precise fact they have been put there by denial of meaningful Access to our Courts in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act or U.S. judicial Conference Communications Disability auxiliary Aids and Services Policy.
Chief Justice Roberts is not exxagerating when he calls for the need for a big increase in Judges' salaries and Court budgets -- maybe most people don't know this EXTREMELY SAD FACT: The Federal Judiciary budget is so low that our Federal Judges, if they accommodate disabled people in Court, are having to pay for these accommdoations right out of their own pocketbooks. Now THERE's a big incentive for a Federal Judge who is not paid anywhere NEAR enough salary to deny a mentally disabled defendant disability accommodations constitutionally necessary for meaningful Access to the Court to mount a defense -- in sum: the Federal Judge has a financial stake in the trial of the defendant affecting its outcome -- one way or the other. Last time I looked, a Judge having a financial stake int he outcome of a case = a Due Process violation.
Regarding the extremely large proportion of homeless people who are mentally disabled, here are some reasons why that really don't take a rocket-scientist:
1. Failure of States, Counties, and Cities to comply with Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act's mandate to provide affordable housing -- at least California tries. And in this respect, the failure of such States, Counties, and Cities to use Kelo to provide mentally disabled homeless people such affordable housing;
2. Failure of almost every State in this Nation to FULLY FUND the Americans With Disabilities Act's UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES to provide every mentally disabled person with ample community-based support services ALA Olmstead v. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), causing mass starvation, medical injuries, lack of employment, lack of housing, and massive pain and suffering of nearly an entire segment of our American population;
3. Incessant tax cuts for privileged wealthy people on the backs of the mentally disabled who are disenfranchised and powerless -- Ask yourselves: If MKDP has been scorched by the flame-throwers on this blog, IMAGINE A HOMELESS MENTALLY DISABLED PERSON TRYING TO RUN FOR THE HOUSE, SENATE, PRESIDENCY, OR JUDICIAL NOMINATION TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!!!! In Florida, a homeless person will automatically be subject to disbarment for not possessing a physical brick and mortar address! So much for equal representation in the Bar and on the Bench ...
It isn't the drop in number of mentally disabled people in institutions that has caused them to be illegally incarcerated in HUGE % NUMBERS in our jails and prisons, but rather ...
all of the factors I have mentioned-above.
I am sure I will be descended upon by the usual flock of vultures and flamed, but just think of this folks: imagine if I get a real 'chip on my shoulder' and GO BECOME A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND APPLY MY SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE IN THAT ARENA!!
You'all ought to just be happy I like the civil arena better, because I am sure the ADA could change the face of American Criminal Law and Procedure as-you-know-it.
Yes, but you are not likely to know it very easily.
The problem is that those who do not already know your points and who are reasonable men, who will be provoked to thought, a little research, and very possible some form of enlightenment -- I do not say whether that means they end up agreeing or not with you -- are generally quiet. They're not going to have a spirited response, because, well, they're thinking things over. Your statements have provoked thought, and thought takes time. You may have raised doubt in their mind, and doubt is the enemy of prolixity and verve in response.
On the other hand, there are here -- on a site read by platoons of newbie lawyers, who'd a-thunk??! -- plenty of people who are very talented at arguing any position whatsoever. So much so, indeed, that they may take greater pleasure in arguing the point than in arriving at any greater insight into the truth, or even a constructive meeting of minds.
Those will respond immediately, at tiresome quibbling length, often brilliantly (if, ultimately, in flat contradiction to common sense). The bulk of your response will come from people who can argue well and immediately, and who do not feel a need to stop and think, and who do not suffer from the internal doubts associated with intellectual humility and an exposure to different points of view.
It can be discouraging. You just have to ignore the attention whores, and trust that the people you are actually reaching are going to show that fact, if at all, rather subtly, quietly, rarely. Sorry.
BTW, I do not assign this particular chapter (which is devoted exclusively to environmental policy) because I have limited time and more essential topics to cover. I have not yet had a chance to read the new edition, so I don't know if there have been any modifications in how the issue is treated.
Evidently Wilson don't do that on principle, being of the dead tree I walked ten miles to school through the snow school. I have news for him, there ain't no more snow.
Those who have the information don't have to link. The difference to a written article is that the informed need to skip over any introductory material, in a blog, the reader makes the choice. Often people will skip the link and come back to it if they find something interesting in the post that requires them to follow the link. Blogs and the web are inherently parallel, books serial.
The second thing is that when your argument depends on data, you want to link to that data, insofar as it exists on line, or to a page that describes that data.
Evidently Wilson don't do that also on principle. Well, one could be offensive about that too.
The third thing from my childhood is remembering math teachers who only marked as correct regurgitations of the proofs they gave in class, other, and often better ways, got zeros.
Wilson do do that.
The fourth thing is that grammar is a
trolltoolJames Wilson pretends that the vast majority of modern research on the topic - from the revisiting of the Broken Windows theory to issues of recidivism, to the effect of the drug war on education and violent crime - isn't against him. Worse, even when he deigns to use facts, he uses them illogically (such as when he announces that a median crime in Wisconsin has more economic value than a year in jail, which even if true, is a bizarrely irrelevant statistic).
"if you think scientists who believe global warming are "activists", then Wilson's textbook is perfectly appropriate."
On the narrow subject of global warming, I believe the distinction being drawn is between scientists who acknowledge the earth may be in a warming trend,but also acknowledge they cannot determine why this is so, and those scientists who also see global warming and affix causation for that trend on mankind's activities. The second group specifically advocates serious steps in an attempt to mitigate or reduce man's influence on global warming. The first group might assert that there are so many variables in global climate influences that - at this point of scientific knowledge - trying to affix the blame on humans is not supported. I believe what other posters may be saying is that scientists who go beyond the scientific evidence while pushing what is, in essence, a political agenda, no longer can claim a data-based justification. The have become activists for a position not supported (or contradicted) by science.
I would refer you to the NOAA reports on tropical cyclones as one legitimate scientific entity that does not feel conclusions about global warming influencing climate - specifically hurricanes - is possible. All of the models, based on historical data and accepting the premise that the climate is heating up, have failed to accurately predict any of the observed storm activity. Their conclusion s that we have not yet identified all of the variables, or in other words, the more we know about the climate, the more we realize we don't really know much at all. It is too complex for us to understand with our present scientific knowledge.
You may not agree with this, but you should admit that a reasonable person could hold that opinion without being some fringe whack-job.
Making readers do research is not "provoking thought". It's forcing them to do drudge work before you'll listen to them.
I've found the phrase "I did it to get people to think" to be a big warning sign of sloppiness. Getting people to think is not an excuse for poor references for doubtful claims, elementary fallacies, or illogic.
Why hello, Professor Szasz! But perhaps you haven't heard--it's not nice to employ sock puppets.
But I'm with commenter GV -- at least thus far, Wilson's advanced some pretty thin arguments that are unlikely to convince anyone who might disagree with him.
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the propriety of a post like yours. The give-and-take is the point. Just speaking for myself, I enjoy reading and responding to an opposing POV. A few times, maybe I was even convinced (but not about Prof. Wilson).
The only thing Professor Wilson brought up here that I personally wondered about was the attempt to quantify in dollars the lack of crimes committed by imprisoned felons. Even that was a response from him to posters who said, in effect "Prison for felons is a great thing, if only it didn't cost so much." i didn't disagree with his conclusions, only the example - turning human suffering and victimization into currency values.
I have read several of Wilson's books, and I don't remember anything that would cause the sort of visceral reactions like those from a few posters, but then, it's been a few years. And also, maybe Prof. Wilson, unlike me, wants those visceral reactions, in order to enliven the discussion.
I don't know what to think about global warming, so I don't disagree with you. I merely think that planetary climate is unimaginably complex, and we should be very slow to start pushing buttons before we understand it.
JC
For example, I read the Becker-Posner blog. Sure there are the lefties who would try to undermine every premise and question every minute step in their arguments. But Becker and Posner rightly just ignore those people and respond only to those who demonstrate reasonable knowledge and fair-mindedness.
The interesting parts of blogs, to me, are the chance to listen in to a brilliant intellect like Mr. Wilson as he thinks aloud in a more informal manner. The comments section of blogs, often dominated by underemployed blowhards, is a way to gauge general reaction and get that 1% insightful comment.
I enjoyed your posts and hearing your take, would be interested to hear more, and plan on checking out the sources you cited. Blogging is a good jumping off point, and that is what your posts did. As far as whether or not you can be an effective blogger - if it wasn't for all the people who pointed out your flaws - I would have never noticed them. Thanks for your time blogging, and I look forward to reading more of your stuff - either here or somewhere else.
First, the typical VC post links to a news article or (less often) another blog, which is certainly not an academic study. But it does give the rest of us a chance to start at the beginning and think along with the blogger. I realize Prof. Wilson isn't reacting to something in the news, but maybe there's something somewhere online that can give some background to the discussion. There's also SSRN which might be a quick source for relevant and linkable academic papers.
Secondly, the style has inarguably been "pronouncement from on high", not lacking links to sources as much as it lacks exposition of Prof. Wilson's thought process. We (or I anyway) aren't asking for footnotes, but something like "as ___ study showed" or "the emergence of the broken window theory was among the earliest nudges toward community policing" followed by a brief summary of the history of the idea as it relates to where you're going with it, would make the post more congenial and better received.
Wilson is right that he was not a "helpful blogger," but he's unfair to some of his critics (other critics were just jerks and were far more unfair to him). By the time that a reader tracks down a book Wilson cites and reads it, this post will be buried deep in the Volokh archives and the comment period will have been long closed. By failing to cite to Internet sources (there have got to be some), it is Wilson who "doesn't advance knowledge," at least not as much as he could if he cited evidence available at a hyperlink.
I think Wilson realizes the problem--this is an Internet forum, not a classroom. Wilson's ideas are interesting, but Wilson cites sources that can't reasonably be checked by anyone in time to participate in the debate. So, for purposes of Internet debate, all he leaves us with is:
Point: Yes, it is.
Counterpoint: No, it isn't.