Update: Gelman replies to the reply and Fung adds to that. My dad always said that you could tell how reliable a journalist was by how they reported on something you actually knew something about. By that test, the Freakonomics guys fail miserably: their coverage of climate change in their second book is embarrassingly bad.
Althought I have yet to read Super Freakonomics, I find it interesting that climate change and issue on which there is no agreement on the basic postulates between the concerned and skeptical is the issue on which to claim the Freakonomics crew is weak.
Bottom line according the them: Started off great, then they got too big for their britches, as it were. Is the actual research behind it performed by peer reviewed internationally acknowledged economists?
Like most science social or otherwise , by the time its converted into digestable public media, conclusions are exaggerated and numbers are ignored or misrepresented. I think the blame falls more on Dubner rather than Levitt here. That said, I love the books and they have me thinking about economics in new and different ways. If Gelman has a problem with the actual research, he should write a comment in a peer reviewed economics journal, not on a blog.
Many of the Freaknomics examples that Kaiser and I discussed in our article were not published in peer-reviewed journals, economics or otherwise. Actually, it was the opposite: in their climate-change chapter, Levitt and Dubner dismiss the peer-reviewed literature in favor of a conversation with a retired software executive who has a Ph. In another case, we criticize not the peer-reviewed literature but rather the conclusions that Levitt and Dubner draw from it in their book.
Their claims about drunk driving and drunk walking did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Neither of these appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
That claim was in fact published in a peer-reviewed journal in biology, not economics , and I indeed published a criticism of that claim in the same journal, following the practice that you recommend. In short, I am a big fan of much of Freakonomics and also have a strong although not absolute respect for peer-reviewed publications.
The criticisms that Kaiser and I expressed were of the weaker aspects of Freakonomics, places where Levitt and Dubner pushed dubious claims with weak reasoning. A point that Freakonomics tries to drive home is that everything is driven by incentives. That said, there are always problems with methodology.
The real question is how material it is. But, currently the trend is for economists to use their blogging platform for anything from macroeconomics to criticizing 7 year old books and getting plenty of attention for it. That it is 7 years old is irrelevant. So is the general consensus here that Dubner and Levitt can say on their blog all they want, but to criticize them you have to go through peer review? If they are real friends in real life, so much the better. But having one set of rules for yourself and another set for the people you choose to attack is neither good logic nor good rhetoric.
In the podcast, I describe some interesting research Kahan and others had done on the perceived risks of climate change. Instead, the more you knew, the more likely you were to hold an extreme view in one direction or the other — that is, to be either very, very worried about the risks of climate change or to be almost not worried at all. In this case, more knowledge led to … more extremism! Why on earth would that be?
Dan Kahan has a theory. He thinks that our individual beliefs on hot-button issues like this have less to do with what we know than with who we know. But my views on climate change will have an impact on me in my life. I found this observation fascinating. Were Gelman-Fung blind to their blindness? I can certainly understand why Freakonomics is an appealing target for someone like Gelman-Fung.
That is generally not what Levitt and I try to do in our Freakonomics work. There are a lot of different ways to explore and explain how the world works, and to resort so easily to attack mode seems to strike me as both counterproductive and exhausting. A shouting match can be fun to watch once in a while, but the world is more interesting than that, or at least it should be.
I think Blattman is right. Just listing the blog or author's name without a link to the specific article is like only listing the publication name in a citation in a research paper. The reader shouldn't have to use a card catalog or google to discover the real source. With the narrow exception of when you're discussing spam, sites that promote hate or other such nonsense.
Many of the commenters seem to be coming from the other blogs along with their thumbs up or down attacks. Keep up the good work Freakonomics and don't let the negative comments get you down. Blattman makes a good point overall, and later apologized for his overstep, and you respond with this?
Seriously, please lose the ego. Also, the Gelman and friends critique can be read as a narrow one -- the specific cases they cite and that you respond to -- or as a broad one: your egos and insularity prevent you from seeing the bigger picture, while you dismiss all criticism as being emotional, political, or ideological.
This post kind of confirms all of that. No, Blattman makes a poor point overall. He accuses the Freakonomics blog of plagiarism, a serious charge to level at a professional journalist. His point in the original post, failing to give due credit, is verifiably wrong. Then, instead of fully and publicly admitting his error in attacking the integrity of the blog he attempts to turn it into an example of his moral acumen. The accusations amount to sacrificing quality work in favor of profit, the use of sloppy calculations and arguments in lieu of substantive evidence and a general disregard for proper citation.
And let's not forget the charge of cronyism. All of these amount to an attack on the character of the authors, an assault on their integrity masquerading as a criticism of the actual work done. The Gelman critique can be read as a narrow one; it can also be read as the broadest of salvos, cherry picking examples to make a violent point. Integrity is not something to be taken lightly.
It is significantly more fragile and more valuable than all the ego in the world, especially when one's profession and this is true of all professions is based on the professionals underlying integrity.
It is not , perhaps, the same as Dubner's understanding of what constitutes plagiarism; this is a fair point. Thus most forms of cheating on examinations are plagiarism; but we usually apply the word to papers rather than to examinations. If you use a source for a paper, you must acknowledge it[ Every academic discipline has its own conventions for acknowledging sources. I think that simply citing a Website without a link does not actually fulfill internet standards for acknowledging sources.
Thought I'd check Twitter how do I hyperlink to that? It was like a detective novel written by a neurotic brain surgeon. I really quite enjoyed it. The overarching analysis that making attacks is simpler, more invigorating and more attention-grabbing than making defences is nice, although on this occasion an impassioned defence definitely won the day.
Is there such thing as an impassioned attack? I'm not so sure. Aggressive, zealous Oh, I think I may have rambled a little. Goodnight from Melbourne. Dubner - just want to commend you on your strong rebuttal. I agree that it is bothersome and time consuming to respond to criticism. However, in this case, I am glad you did. I remember when I first read the Gelman-Fung article, it seemed to be one of the longer and better researched pieces critiquing the unique perspective that Freakonomics both the books and blog take.
But it soon became obvious that it was filled with both factual and logical errors. I actually came away from that article with more respect for the work Dubner and Levitt - if that's the strongest criticism that can be brought, and it's so weak, that must mean that the authors of freakonomics have really done a good job. I'd think it would be the other way around. The problem is that in terms of more "technical" fields like science or politics, poorer attacks are often easier for the typical person to understand not to mention quicker to put out.
This means that it's easier for the false idea to grab root. And it's often much easier to respond to poor attacks, especially if you can point right back to the work they are attacking. Responding to the well written attacks on Emily Oster's paper, for example, required a more through review of the research material, whereas Stephen Dubner needed only to quote things he and his colleagues already said. While it seems like your critics have overstepped their bounds and made things too personal, I think you do a disservice to yourself and your work with parts of this post.
Was it really necessary to make a silly attack on Ezra Klein like that, with the gross generalization that "he too seems to be in the business of attacking at any cost? Is it possible that you are blind to some of your own blindness?
My own bias yes, we all have one is that I'd be surprised he admitted it, not that he doesn't think. People swept up in their own " overdeveloped sense of justice", often don't let minor things like truth or reality get in the way of their crusade. I have found that charistic, does go along with some professors, again my own bias. While you make some reasonable points, you do your cause significant disservice with your tone and the personal attacks.
Gelman and Fung claim to have found some problems with the science and tried to explain how they might have happened and suggested some possible remedies. Gelman goes out of his way at every turn to say that he is a fan and that he appreciates much of the Freakonomics work. He's also willing to allow for the possibility that he's wrong and that he could learn from you.
You might learn to do the same. Isn't it at least possible that you yourself are blind to your blindness? I think there would be tremendous value to all parties in having an actual discussion with them, privately, instead of one-off journal articles or a blog fight where the tendency is to talk past one another. They may be and they are! Having read their criticism, they are not circumspect about this. It's interesting that you don't respond to that criticism at all and then weasel around with rhetoric like this.
What would you think if one of your students was so indirect? Every year, thousands of people in the U. Bapu talks The U. How did that happen? The answer may come down to two little letters: V. Is venture capital Freakonomics: What Went Right? Responding to Wrong-Headed Attacks Warning: what follows is a horribly long, inside-baseball post that most people will likely have little interest in reading, and which I had little interest in writing. Subscribe Sign In. Continue reading your article with a WSJ membership.
Resume Subscription We are delighted that you'd like to resume your subscription. Please click confirm to resume now. Sponsored Offers. Most Popular News.
0コメント