Comments on: Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance

By: David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:25:32 +0000

I agree with Graham. We are writing blog comments, not school papers, so don’t expect a thesis or for me to crunch the numbers, although sometimes, like you, I will if I read something that doesn’t make sense to me. But, some of Freakonomics claims are just plain silly and you don’t need to be a statistician to see that. You can be persuaded against them by looking at the arguments they make. Others have demonstrated the fallacy of their approach and you can find them on the web. One I just read before I read yours was on Fr. . ics’ drunk driving essay, which showed how Fr…ics made unwarranted assumptions, compared apples and oranges, in order to come to an exciting conclusion. I sure hope the next time any reader of their book has a choice between drunk walking or driving, they will walk. Drunk walking is bad enough, as it can be fatal too, but at least they will not take anyone with them. Perhaps they could show statistically that few people die walking drunk on train tracks, but would you believe that this was more advisable than walking on the street. Bet they could sell it. Huff and Geis’s How to Lie with Statistics published in 1954 and republished in the 80s is a much more honest guide for people who want to understand how to avoid being taken in by statistics. They do not von Danikenize statistics, but show the art that Freakonomics tries to pass as science. There are other similar books out there which I would recommend than Fr…ics. I don’t need to read every book to find out whether it’s worth it or not.

But, all that said, I like your blog. You have something to say.

By: IanVisits

IanVisits — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:13:44 +0000

A pity you didn’t offer any concrete examples.

He did say at the talk I was at that they are would be delighted if people didn’t just have knee-jerk reactions, but studied the actual data to see if they had made mistakes in their calculations. He accepts that he might have made mistakes – but no one else wants to look at the data, so how can he be proved to be wrong?

What was mentioned as annoying was how few people/politicians etc are willing to look at the data before announcing policies on issues.

I can assure you I have critically studied some of their stuff and, while that doesn’t come across in a short blog posting, my posting wasn’t meant as a 16 page thesis either.

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:38:51 +0000

It’s a pity very little of this guy’s work actually stands up to any scrutiny, and a pity that you’ve apparently taken it in entirely uncritically.

By: Richard G Brown

Richard G Brown — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:03:36 +0000

I went to their discussion at the LSE on Monday night and it covered similar ground.

I was taken aback by the barely concealed rage at their position on Climate Change. I’d estimate that almost half of the questions from the audience were about it and, although nobody was overtly aggressive, it was clear that many people had decided they were dangerously subversive.

To my mind it was just further evidence that, for many, climate change is a convenient figleaf under which various campaigners can achieve the ends they would be seeking regardless. Which is a real shame because such behaviour has a counter-productive and will result in total loss of public support for *any* efforts to fix the problem.