Skip to main content

Bayes' Rule - James V. Stone ***

Of all the areas of mathematics, probability is arguably the most intriguing to the non-mathematician, and this is particularly the case with Bayesian analysis, which can be delightfully counter-intuitive. However, the more complex aspects can be tricky to get your head around, so I was delighted to have the chance to read this book, subtitled 'a tutorial introduction to Bayesian analysis.'

I need to say straight away that this isn't really a popular science title, and the author is very clear about this - it's a kind of textbook lite - but if you have found out a bit about Bayes this book is an opportunity to dive into it a little deeper without taking on the full rigour of a textbook approach. Why should you care? Bayes gives us a mechanism that enables us to do things like go from a known piece of information like 'what's the probability of a symptom given a disease' to estimate a much more interesting unknown like 'what's the probability of the disease given a symptom' - an extremely powerful mechanism.

James Stone does his best to accommodate us ordinary folk. The book opens well, apart from a bizarrely heavy smattering of references on page 1, with a gentle introduction, and keeps the mood light after the classic disease application by looking for a mechanism of determining whether some said 'four candles' or 'fork handles' in the Two Ronnies style. If you are prepared to make an effort, for most of us probably a considerable effort, you will go on to pick up a lot more about using Bayes than you already knew (if you aren't a mathematician).

It is rather unfortunate for the general reader, though, that the book obeys the rules of the textbook rather than a popular science exposition. This comes across in unnecessary use of terminology - defining things that, frankly we don't need to know - and in rapidly moving to using symbols in equations, where they are rarely necessary at this level and all they do is put readers off. I suspect the moment that Stone introduced the Greek letter theta (θ) he made things ten times harder - unless you do this kind of thing every day, suddenly the text gets far less readable - the eyes bounce off it.

Even though I enjoyed the fork handles, I also thought the choice of examples could have been better. It was okay to use disease and symptom once, as it's an important application, but most of us rarely have to deal with this kind of situation and it would have been better to use more personally relevant applications. It was also unfortunate that when explaining random variables Stone chose a coin which is 90% likely to be heads and 10% likely to be tails - there is too much baggage attached to coins being 50:50. It would have been less confusing to have something that we might encounter (a scratch card, say) that is likely to be one value 90% of the time and the other 10%.

If you make it to the final chapter you are rewarded with a very readable, if too brief, introduction to the distinction between Bayesian and frequentist approaches, and just a touch of the mind bending capabilities of Bayesian thinking. With a bit more of this contextual material throughout the experience would have been gentler and more enjoyable - but even as a closer to the book it provides interesting material.

Don't expect, then that this book will make fun, popular science bedtime reading. It's not that kind of exercise. However, if you are prepared to overcome the onslaught of thetas and don't mind reading some statements several times to get what's being said, it is an excellent way to expand a vague understanding into a more sound knowledge of the basic mechanics of Bayesian analysis.


Paperback 


Buy direct from the author: Click here
See one of the mind-bending implications of Bayes' rule in our feature.
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quantum Space: Jim Baggott *****

There's no doubt that Jim Baggott is one of the best popular science writers currently active. He specialises in taking really difficult topics and giving a more in-depth look at them than most of his peers. The majority of the time he achieves with a fluid writing style that remains easily readable, though inevitably there are some aspects that are difficult for the readers to get their heads around - and this is certainly true of his latest title Quantum Space, which takes on loop quantum gravity.

As Baggott points out, you could easily think that string theory was the only game in town when it comes to the ultimate challenge in physics, finding a way to unify the currently incompatible general theory of relativity and quantum theory. Between them, these two behemoths of twentieth century physics underlie the vast bulk of physics very well - but they simply can't be put together. String theory (and its big brother M-theory, which as Baggott points out, is not actually a the…

Beyond Weird - Philip Ball *****

It would be easy to think 'Surely we don't need another book on quantum physics.' There are loads of them. Anyone should be happy with The Quantum Age on applications and the basics, Cracking Quantum Physics for an illustrated introduction or In Search of Schrödinger's Cat for classic history of science coverage. Don't be fooled, though - because in Beyond Weird, Philip Ball has done something rare in my experience until Quantum Sense and Nonsense came along. It makes an attempt not to describe quantum physics, but to explain why it is the way it is.

Historically this has rarely happened. It's true that physicists have come up with various interpretations of quantum physics, but these are designed as technical mechanisms to bridge the gap between theory and the world as we see it, rather than explanations that would make sense to the ordinary reader.

Ball does not ignore the interpretations, though he clearly isn't happy with any of them. He seems to come clo…

Everything You Know About Planet Earth is Wrong - Matt Brown ****

This is the latest of a series of 'Everything You Know About... is Wrong' books from Matt Brown. Although I always feel slightly hard done by as a result of the assertion in the title, as there are certainly things here I know that aren't wrong (I mean, come on, the first corrected piece of 'knowledge' is that 'The Earth is only 6,000 years old' and I can't imagine many readers will 'know' that), it's a handy format to provide what are often surprisingly little snippets of information that are very handy for 'did you know' conversations down the pub (or showing up your parents if you're a younger reader).

Some of the incorrect statements that head each article are well-covered, if often still believed (for example, people thought that world was flat before Columbus), some are a little tricksy in the wording (such as seas have to wash up against land) and some are just pleasantly surprising (countering the idea that gold is a rar…