Superfreakonomics and credibility

[andygates]

The blogosphere is alight with critiques of Superfreakonomics, whose climate-change chapter appears to have been written in crayon by a drunken marmoset watching Fox News.

Question is: Knowing how incompetent that chapter is, how can I trust any of the rest of the Freako oeuvre? 

Comments

[skean.livejournal.com]

Hmm. That sounds like a shame. I really liked "Freakonomics" and was looking forward to "Superfreakonmics" as well. Will probably still read it and see.

[despaer.livejournal.com]

I agree, that does sound like a shame. I am also more than a bit suprised given that alot of what they said in Freakonomics (e.g. allowing abortion is an effective weapon against crime) is politically incorrect but was invariably backed by their own proofs. I would be interested to hear what they had to say on it.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

They suggest that SO2 geoengineering is a good idea. What surprises me is that, science aside, they're keen on a permanent and increasing commitment to spend with no return and high consequences of non-payment. It's not even economically good sense.

And that's before you look at the weak, weak science (viz: SO2 would work, be practical, and wouldn't turn the seas to crap).

[bicycleslut.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

I finally read Freakonomics last month whilst I was traveling - it had been on my list for *ages*. Like a lot of people, I really enjoyed it. I'd never really got the whole ethnography thing, but the chapter on "why do drug dealers live with their moms?" really made sense. When I got back and mentioned it to a much cleverer friend (who lectures at Goldsmiths) she said she rates it so highly that she recommends it to her students as a good introduction to ethnographic methods and many of them go onto reading Sudhir Venkatesh's own book on the study.

I suspect that after the latest revelations, she'll probably recommend that they skip Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt altogether...