Thursday, May 11, 2006

Horowitz Lies Again

In an email exchange with Scott Jaschik of, David Horowitz writes:
there is still not a single attempt by my opponents to actually respond to the 15,000 word analysis in the introduction and final two chapters
If there weren’t already plenty of evidence of Horowitz’s inability to be completely honest, this one should be enough.

Let me just take my own case (there are plenty of others). I don’t care about whether or not there are 100 or 101 or 102 professors “profiled” in the book (Horowitz complains about Free Echange on Campus’s Facts Count little bit of snarkiness on this “count” in that same email—rather than really addressing the issues the study raises), but have not only debunked Horowitz’s claim he is using a legitimate research model called “prosopography’ but have shown what a real research project on college professors and politics might look like.

Horowitz can’t even claim to be unaware of my debunking of his ‘prosopography’ claim: he wrote about it on his own blog, claiming to have contacted a “Professor X” who says that “What you [Horowitz] did was look at your 100 subjects and see if there were patterns in careers,” thus making the attempt ‘prosopography.’ Thing is, that’s not what Horowitz did: he looked a 100 selected subjects, thus negating any possible intellectual value to the exercise. You can’t draw conclusions about a whole that way. What Horowitz has done would be the same as selecting young black men as a basis for studying incarceration rates and then applying your results to all young men. Ridiculous. In addition, there is no data compiled in Horowitz’s book, no aggregation at all. No patterns are established, which there would have to be, for ‘prosopography.’ Finally, Horowitz’s conclusions were reached without any collating of the data—an intellectual no-no.

There are ways, as I have shown, that a reasonable study could have been conducted. And, like many others, I have demonstrated the weaknesses of Horowitz’s introduction and last two chapters (the parts he claims no one has responded to). Go look at my posts (there are more, even, than the one’s linked above). You will see quite clearly that Horowitz’s study is in no way reasonable. That is has zero viability or value.

And for him to be saying, at this point, that no one has responding to his chapters just reinforces the current image of him as a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt man.

No comments: