Superfreakonomic problems

[sawyl]

Back from my holiday and associated internet vacation, my attention has been snagged by John Crace's scathing take on Superfreakonomics:

Did you know that it took a maverick doctor to point out that puerperal fever was caused by other doctors not washing their hands? Oh you did. Well, anyway, some global problems can easily be solved, but people reject the solutions because they appear too cheap and easy. Take hurricanes. They are caused by a slight rise in the surface temperature of the sea in key locations. Professor Lysergic Acid of the University of Middle-Earth has come up with an ingenious answer. Dump all the world's unwanted fridges in these areas and you will kill two birds with one stone. But for some reason no one wants to listen to him.

And Crace isn't the only one to be sceptical. Here, via Bookslut, is a Washington Post smackdown on the whole drink-driving thing:

It's terrifically shoddy statistical work. You'd get dinged for this in a college class. But it's in a book written by a celebrated economist and a leading journalist. Moreover, the topic isn't whether people prefer chocolate or vanilla, but whether people should drive drunk. It is shoddy statistical work, in other words, that allows people to conclude that respected authorities believe it is safer for them to drive home drunk than walk home drunk. It's shoddy statistical work that could literally kill somebody. That makes it more than bad statistics. It makes it irresponsible.

Ouch.

Comments

[drspleen.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, this is interesting, I've been reading the first one and liking it alot. Maybe I haven't been stringent enough on my view of their statistics...

[sawyl.livejournal.com]

It may well be that the first book is rather better than the second, as tends to be the case with follow-ups to surprise best sellers...