Skip to main content

The Theory that would not Die – Sharon Bertsch Mcgrayne ***

Occasionally I review a book that makes me think ‘I wish I wrote that’ – and sometimes I nearly did. The subject of Sharon Bertsch Mcgrayne’s book, as the rather lengthy subtitle tells us is ‘how Bayes’ rule cracked the Enigma code, hunted down Russian submarines and emerged triumphant from two centuries of controversy.’ There is no doubt that Bayes’ theorem is the most intriguing piece of maths most people have never heard of, and I did once write a proposal for a book about it, but the publisher said no one would get it. I believe they should get it. But Bayes’ theorem, though simple, is famously difficult to keep in mind. So a significant test of this book is how well Mcgrayne gets across what the theorem really is.
The good news is that this isn’t a stuffy book of heavy mathematics – Mcgrayne has a light touch and an airy style. I did worry early on if it was too airy as she resorts to language that is a little cringeworthy. She says ‘In 1731 [Bayes] wrote a pamphlet – a kind of blog’ – now if she had said ‘if he was alive today he would probably have written a blog’ I would have been comfortable. But to put it the way she does… I can imagine her writing about Shakespeare: ‘Around this time, Shakespeare wrote his first play – a kind of movie.’
This is mildly worrying, but what is more concerning is the way she handles the topic of another pamphlet Bayes wrote. It was, it seems, a response to George Berkeley’s ‘The Analyst: A discourse addressed to an infidel mathematician.’ The infidel in question was Edmund Halley, an atheist, and concerned calculus. Berkeley’s points out that Halley mocks believers for taking things on faith, yet supports a mathematical concept that requires you to do maths with something that disappears, as Berkeley puts it ‘The ghosts of departed quantities’, which also takes faith. In his quite detailed analysis, Berkeley points out a legitimate mathematical flaw in the basis of the calculus, as practised at the time.
But Mcgrayne’s take is quite different. She calls it an ‘inflammatory pamphlet attacking Dissenting mathematicians and… “infidel mathematicians” who believed that reason could illuminate any subject.’ That is patently wrong. Halley was not a Dissenter in the usual sense of the word, and Berkeley’s attack on the basis of calculus was, mathematically, correct. Berkeley was, in reality, arguing for the use of reason and at the same time attacking Halley’s lack of Christian faith, something Bayes would have heartily agreed with. What worries me is if the reality of Berkeley’s pamphlet could be so distorted to fit a particular viewpoint, how many other historical facts have been misused? This might be a single instance, but it was a bit worrying, coming as it does on page 4.
The bulk of the book concerns the 200 year battle between two types of statistics. Broadly there is frequentist statistics, the one you are likely to be familiar with, where you gather lots of data and spot trends, calculate means and all that good stuff. Then there is Bayesian statistics. This starts with an prior knowledge, or probabilities you might have, even if not directly about the problem in hand, then transforms this prior knowledge with new data as and when it is available. This means it can produce useful results with far less data – a more typical real world situation – but the maths can be quite messy, and it has a degree of subjectivity that mathematicians have always shied away from.
I did a masters in operational research in the 1970s, a discipline that Mcgrayne tells us was founded on Bayesian statistics, but never once heard anything about them on my course. This shows just how much fashions have often swung against Bayes.
So how does the book do? Not brilliantly. It is irritating vague about how Bayesian statistics works, combining a totally opaque formula early on with example after example that really just describes the inputs without ever saying how they are used. To make matters worse there is chapter after chapter of what is basically two bunches of statisticians arguing and Bayesian statistics sort of being used in rather uninspiring circumstances. It only really came alive for me when the author was describing its use in the hunt for mislaid nuclear weapons – and even then it is not at all clear how the technique was used from the way she describes it.
Most frustrating of all is that the second appendix contains a very clear example of a simple Bayesian working with a remarkable result. This is the first time in the whole book that it becomes fairly obvious what is going on with Bayesian statistics. This example should have been right up front, not in an appendix that half the readers won’t even bother with, and there should have been similarly clear examples of some of the more complex applications. Not in full detail, but enough to get a feel for what is happening.
Overall, then, it seems the publishers who didn’t want me to write about this made the correct call. I am the ideal audience – I worked in operational research, for goodness sake. And I still found most of it uninspiring and hard to understand how Bayesian methods were being used in the particular examples. What a shame.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to Drive a Nuclear Reactor - Colin Tucker ****

How To Drive A Nuclear Reactor does exactly what it says on the tin. The book is a general overview of nuclear reactors. From the basic principles that make them work through to what buttons to press in what order (and of course how and why they can go wrong).Nuclear power could be a good step on the path to a greener energy future, but there is a lot of understandable fear. This book can give some idea of what an incredible feat of both science and engineering one of these machines is and, hopefully, make anyone reading it feel far more comfortable about them.The book presents information about everything, almost down to the literal nuts and bolts, giving you a near complete understanding of how a nuclear works. From putting in the fuel to getting out the power and down from the control panel to the construction material. Everything you could ever want to know is here. By the end you'll likely feel ready to walk into a control room and get started (do not try doing this, nuclear …

Being Mortal - Atul Gawande ****

I heard recently that the local geriatric ward puts a photograph of the patient in his or her prime by each bed. The aim is to help staff to treat their patients as individuals, but it makes me uneasy. Do these people only matter because of what they were, not what they are? Because once they stood proud and handsome in their uniform, or looked lovely on their wedding day?

Professor Atul Gawande has the problem surgically excised and laid out for inspection in one of his unflinching but compassionate case studies:

‘What bothered Shelley was how little curiosity the staff members seemed to have about what Lou cared about in his life and what he had been forced to forfeit... They might have called the service they provided assisted living, but no-one seemed to think it was their job to actually assist him with living – to figure out how to sustain the connection and joys that most mattered to him.’

Gawande is an eminent surgeon. As a young resident he displayed little overt emotion when hi…

Twenty Worlds - Niall Deacon *****

This is a truly entertaining and informative book, but the reason I’m giving it the full five stars has as much to do with the refreshing novelty of the author’s style as anything else. There’s novelty in the subject-matter too – the wide variety of recently discovered exoplanets orbiting other stars – but even so this is the third book on the topic that I’ve read. The first two were a lot less fun to read, and (without naming and shaming the authors) it’s worth a brief diversion to explain why.The first author was a university professor with a vast knowledge of the subject, who seemed determined to convey the entirety of that knowledge without stopping to think whether it was interesting or necessary for a general audience. The second author – another academic – took a different but equally tedious approach, with a plodding chronological account that focused as much on the dull routine of the scientists involved as on their work.Niall Deacon doesn’t make either of those mistakes. He’…