Dubner’s response to the “superfreakonomics” accusations

Read it here. I note it does not discuss Krugman’s criticism, which I deem serious, and which aired in a NYT blog, just as the freakonomics blog is a NYT blog. I am curious to see what their response will be to Krugman, if any. Dubner and Levitt can hardly say Krugman is spreading smears about them; they either misread the Weitzman article, or they did not. It looks like they misread it; it’s up to them to convince me otherwise.

I still have no intention of buying Superfreakonomics. I’ll be damned if I reward the authors and the publisher of such stuff that passes for science writing. Again, I will keep an eye open for any adequate answers by Levitt and Dubner; I have not seen any yet.

More on Superfreakonomics and its early terrible reviews

Mark Thoma has a blog entry that quotes Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong and some responses from Levitt and Dubner. My curiosity continues (are Levitt and Dubner really this blinded by what they want to believe in?) but I most definitely will not buy or recommend this book.

Superfreakonomics appears to have jumped the shark

Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’: New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and “patent nonsense” — and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says “it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and “misleading” in “many” places. « Climate Progress

Wow. I am shocked but not surprised. The need to appear smart by claiming counterintuitive results is widespread in academia.