Skip to main content

Is That a Big Number? - Andrew Elliott ***

This is a curious book, which has the very worthy intent of giving us more of a feel for numbers - so, as the author points out, it's not really about maths at all. It's more about statistics in the original meaning of a collection of numbers about a state, rather than the modern analytical sense of the word. Andrew Elliott approaches this problem with a very individual and amiable manner, giving all kinds of approaches, while throwing in little quizzes, tables of comparisons and more.

 Broadly, Elliott divides our mechanisms for assessing numbers into five. The first is landmark numbers, which act as a known milestick - classic examples would be the approach often adopted by newspapers of measuring things in blue whales, football pitches or Eiffel Towers, though it's about far more than measuring height or volume. The second technique is visualisation - picturing the numbers in some sort of visual context. Thirdly he suggests dividing the number up into smaller parts, and fourthly bringing them down to size by using the as proportions or ratios. Finally he points out the value of logarithmic scales, even though these can result in misunderstanding some of the other measures.

 What we get here is a real mix - some parts of the book are genuinely fun, others are, frankly, only of interest to a number fanatic. The biggest problem here is that, while there are genuinely interesting attempts to give experience of comparing or visualising numbers, the way the book meanders with little narrative structure makes it difficult to keep on top of what's happening. It's very scattergun, with a fair amount of the material that was hard to find interesting - such as lots of lists of comparisons of things where the numbers are vaguely similar. (For example, the time since the earliest known writing is about 25 x the time since the birth of Darwin. And we care why?)

 There are little quizzes at the start of each section which ask, for example, which is the most numerous of Boeing 747s built up to 2016, the population of Falkland Islands, grains of sugar in a teaspoon and satellites in orbit in 2015. These are quite fun, though it's a pain looking up the answer in the back of the book. And that specific example (the first) also irritates as it involves comparing something with an exact value (number of satellites, say) with a wild approximation - we're told there are more satellites as there are 4080 satellites versus 4000 grains of sugar in a teaspoon - but I'm sure a 'teaspoon of sugar' is not accurate to the nearest 80 grains.

 Perhaps less of an issue, but still slight odd, is that a few of the facts are impressively out of date. Elliott uses a definition of the metre that has been obsolete since 1983 and there's a section on the Richter scale that fails to mention that it has been little used since the 1970s (although they sometimes mislabel it, the earthquake scale used on the news is not the Richter scale).

 Those, though, are minor issues. While there is a much better book to help the reader get a real feel for how numbers are misused and how to understand big numbers better in Blastland and Dilnot's The Tiger That Isn't, I still found Is That a Big Number? interesting and I'm glad I read it.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

 
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more