Skip to main content

How to Make the World Add Up - Tim Harford ****

Many UK listeners will be familiar with the BBC's excellent More or Less radio show, hosted by the Financial Times' 'undercover economist' Tim Harford. The programme takes on numbers in the news to explain them and, where necessary, show what's wrong with them, in a light but informative fashion. The only slight problem with the programme is that it does tend towards silly presentation styles (though the last couple of years these have been toned down). On his own, Tim Harford is perhaps less fun and more serious in style, but remains approachable on a subject that most of us ought to understand better.

One of the most enjoyable things in the field is to shoot down misuse of stats. It's certainly an important thing to do, but Harford points out that only doing this, while entertaining, is potentially dangerous as it may lead to a total detachment from the usefulness of statistics. Instead, he suggests, we need to get better about thinking about the numbers we are bombarded with in our lives, so that we can most sensibly make use of what we are being told.

The approach in the book, in the fashionable 'ten rules' style, gives us a series of statistical 'commandments' such as being aware of our emotional response to data to avoid simply reacting based on emotion, or finding appropriate context, or being aware that facts can change. For each of the ten we are given examples, mostly historical, though all interesting. It's a shame in a way that the book was finished in March, so we get a few initial thoughts on by far the biggest statistical impact on lives in 2020 - the coronavirus pandemic - but it was too soon to have in-depth examples from this.

In the final chapter, Harford condenses all his commandments in New Testament style into simpler guidance that encompasses the rest - be curious. It is curiosity that inspires us to explore the statistics we are given - and to question them effectively when they need questioning, rather than simply dismissing them as fake news or accepting them as indisputable fact.

If you want guidance on what's really happening in the numbers we see, it's impossible to beat David Spiegelhalter's magisterial The Art of Statistics. But if you want to discover the best mindset to appreciate statistics, make the most of them and find where it's necessary to ask more and doubt the outcome, then Harford, through How to Make the World Add Up, is an ideal guide.

I'm reminded in a way of Brian Cox's popular science titles written with Jeff Forshaw, such as The Quantum Universe. If the fans of Cox's fluffy TV documentaries were to pick up one of these books (as no doubt many did), they would find it a lot harder going that the TV shows, but more intellectually rewarding. There's not quite such a disparity between Harford's book and More or Less - but listeners will find it less of an educational entertainment and more of an educative read.

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...