AnalysisFreakonomics seeks to turn the scalpel of analytical and statistical methods intrinsic to economics on questions that the authors believe have no definitive answers. Mainly because no one thought to ask questions that would allow us (the world at large, not business students) to solve the problems that would lead to the answers, the authors believe. For this reason, Freakonomics is attended by all the problems of the so-called soft sciences. The data and conclusions often seem susceptible to multiple interpretations. There is a relatively large “eye of the beholder” problem with books like Freakonomics, compounded by the authors' failure to provide (or purposeful decision to omit) the data from which they draw these conclusions. Because the data is hidden, it is difficult for the reader to look behind the scenes and determine whether they will come to similar conclusions. We can't say whether they are right. All we can do is say whether we believe it or not. Not if we agree. Faith.Freakonomics is one of those books where if you agree with the conclusions then you say: Exactly. But if you don't, you have to trust that the authors are right and you are not. There appears to be no method to debunk this, other than to point out the inconsistencies. This upsets me, it's almost like turning science into a religion, instead of an explanation of a phenomenon that we need science to be better at or build a better world. That said, Freakonomics sometimes seems to arrive at inconsistent results. conclusions. Or at least the ones that seem decidedly open to controversy. Freakonomics concludes that more police officers lead to less crime. They come to this conclusion, they say, by analyzing... middle of paper... and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. Tzu, Sun. Sun Tzu: The Art of War. [Sl]: Pax Librorum Pub. H, 2009. E “The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of his own accord before there is any real hostilities… It is better to win without fighting.” (Tzu, 2009) Apparently fate was an excellent student. I mean, you certainly can't argue that Destiny isn't overly successful at what it does. Furthermore, according to Freakonomics (and according to the data) most of us never escape its machinations. Or as the Freakonomics data would likely show: Fate's parents were well educated, had lots of books in the house, and came from a high socioeconomic background. One wonders what life would be like for all of us if Destiny had instead grown up in the projects, or in the East in some hovel of poverty, and her parents had called her Karma.