A Review of a Review: An NYT Review of a Very Reviewable Freakonomics

The New York Times takes on the two Ste(v/ph)ens. Jim Holt's review of Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's Freakonomics delves into the intricacies of the book and reveals all the things that could have been done wrong. He highlights the fact that the economist of the two (Levitt) "strayed far from the customary paddock of the dismal science in search of interesting problems" which is something I touched on in my own review. It is true that Levitt did this, but he walks right back onto the path by connecting it to daily encounters and real-life situations. To so many, science has become boring and confusing. It's the kind of work Levitt and Dubner have shared that makes it interesting so much so that you wouldn't even call it science anymore--just freakonomics. Described as "an odd book" by Holt, I would never not not not agree to that statement. However, Holt implies that it's a bad thing. I checked the thesaurus and "bad" is not a synonym of "odd"..."freaky" is though. Holt does redeem himself, though, by crediting the great trivia and lengths that both authors (and others) went through in order to make this book possible--two of the things I most admire about this book. Holt ends his slight criticism and praise with a little paragraph about how economists are, for the most part, arrogant. (I can neither refute nor support that claim.) He gives Levitt and Dubner where credit is due and says that they are the odd ones out of his economist claim. Like Holt, I believed that this was a truly awesome book.