Sunday, May 7, 2017

TOW #28: "Super-Freakonomics" Part 1

              In Super-Freakonomics, economists Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner explore the logic and science of various phenomena. In the first half, such phenomena included climate change, natural human hate, and prostitution. This book is a sequel to the incredibly popular Freakonomics, which is considered a must-read for economists and math-fanatics alike. One example of their analysis involves examining the ethics of prostitution. The authors compare free, legal sex to a socialist concept, and prostitutes who turn sex into an industry are being capitalist American patriots. Of course, the fact that prostitution is a black market also ha a major effect on the business.
              It is important to be critical when reading, even when you’re reading something from authors as successful as Levitt and Dubner. As experienced and knowledgeable as they are, they can make mistakes. In the section dedicated to climate change, they commit some significant logical fallacies. The chapter is presented as a response to Al Gore, a famous political advocate for change to combat global warming. The authors present scientists who disagree with Gore’s claims and play it as a rebuttal from science against Al Gore. However, a truly scientific point of view would have mentioned how scientists overwhelmingly agree that Gore is correct in his fears. The authors are committing a confirmation bias logical fallacy by only examining evidence that supports the view the authors clearly had prior to their research.

              After reading the climate-change chapter, it is difficult to accept what the authors say. Climate change (for some odd reason) is a political issue, and perhaps the authors were biased for political reasons. However, in the previous book, the authors made an argument for legal abortion, which would come from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Perhaps, instead, the authors are motivated to have an “everything you know is wrong” attitude in order to seem like enlightened spreaders of truth over inferior mortals (the audience), in which case, they are not to be trusted.