Steven Levitt shares data that shows car seats are no more effective than seatbelts in protecting kids from dying in cars. However, during the Q&A, he makes one crucial caveat.
Greg Laden's Blog
Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff
Recent Comments
- Zach on My critique of Morgan's Aquatic Ape TED talk
- faithlessgod on We may need this in Minneapolis (a.k.a. Bikeyapolis)
- Eddie Janssen on Noachian Flood Reconstructed
- MPL on Cobra vs. Python: Who would win?
- MPL on We may need this in Minneapolis (a.k.a. Bikeyapolis)
- Traffic Demon on The First Openly Gay MLB Owner
- Traffic Demon on Noachian Flood Reconstructed
- Jared on Noachian Flood Reconstructed
- Umlud on Cobra vs. Python: Who would win?
- The Science Pundit on Noachian Flood Reconstructed
Profile
Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.
Search
Blogroll
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Recent Posts
- Noachian Flood Reconstructed
- The Corporation Part 15
- Cobra vs. Python: Who would win?
- We may need this in Minneapolis (a.k.a. Bikeyapolis)
- New Physics Theory Explains ... More than we Want to Know
- Oh, and Happy Anniversary to Me
- Vilification Ping Pong: Open Source vs. Proprietary Solutions in the Library Setting
- The Corporation Part 14
- The First Openly Gay MLB Owner
- Islamic Creationism in the News
« Blog Roll | Main | Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsayev »
Steven Levitt: Are children's carseats necessary?
Posted on: July 1, 2008 10:29 PM, by Greg Laden
Find more posts in: 
Medicine & Health
Technology
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/75132
Comments
This guy's approach, where he weaves the story of the "two cures" without telling you what he's actually taking about -- to build the suspense or whatever the hell he thinks he's doing -- is annoying as hell, to the point that if I were in the audience, I would have thrown a soda at him by about 45 seconds... What an asshole.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | July 2, 2008 8:33 AM
I thought the cure thing was a brilliant idea executed here for the very first time and done poorly. Yes, annoying as hell. The TED audience was getting a first draft. Maybe the guy has a future in blogging.
But I went ahead an put this up because I think his point is interesting. (This does not mean I agree with him.)
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 2, 2008 8:54 AM
the point is interesting, but the idea that he is trying to "resolve" the date into his hypothesis seems a bit off. to me that smacks of refusing to let go of a concept, despite the evidence against it, or at least of an extremely narrow view... I think the TED producers made the interesting decision to include just that one question at the end. I've watched a lot of their videos, and that is pretty unusual.
btw, in the story of the father and the placebo pills, he left out a third possible reason for fewer patients coming back, that they were actually sick and had died in the interim. his lack of interest in the serious injury outcome and the father's apparent lack of interest in follow-up care seem of a piece...
Posted by: peter | July 2, 2008 11:24 AM
I'd have to look more into the matter to form an opinion on his conclusion, but speaking to the talk itself:
The idea was a good one, it was definitely the delivery that was lacking.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 2, 2008 11:25 AM
Levitt has posted his thoughts.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/a-speech-of-mine-that-bombed/
Posted by: cephyn | July 2, 2008 3:49 PM