Skip to main content

Escape from Model Land - Erica Thompson ***

Over the last few years a number of books, notably Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math, David Orrell's Economyths, Cathy O Neil's Weapons of Math Destruction and Tim Palmer's The Primacy of Doubt, have pointed out problems with the mathematical modelling done by businesses, physicists, meteorologists, epidemiologists, economists and more. These are not anti-science polemics, but rather people who know what they're talking about pointing out the dangers of getting too carried away with elegant mathematics and models, often assuming that the models effectively are reality (and certainly presenting them that way in some of the writing and press releases from the scientists building and using the models).

Erica Thompson takes on the problems of mentally inhabiting the mathematical world she describes as 'model land'. As she cogently points out, it's fine to play in model land all that you like - the problem comes with the way that you exit model land and tie back to the real world. This book is loaded with examples from climate forecasts, economics, pandemic forecasting and more where the modellers have been unable to successfully get out of model land and present their information usefully to those who have to make decisions (or the public). This is not an attempt to get rid of models. Thompson's key argument is that while models will pretty well always be wrong they can still be very useful - and an understanding of uncertainty/risk combined with expert interpretation is the best (if sometimes narrow) bridge to link model land to the real world.

Unfortunately, unlike the books mentioned above, Thompson's doesn't read particularly well - the writing is very dry. It's also arguable that having set us up to ask questions about scientific output and models, we don't get the same degree of analysis applied to Thompson's personal ideas. So, for example, she tells us 'Diversity in boardrooms is shown to result in better decision making'. I don't doubt this, or the parallel she is drawing for needing diversity of models - but how was success of decision making measured, and what does diversity mean in this context? In fact diversity is something of a running theme, with Thompson several times referring to model makers as largely WEIRD (apparently standing for Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Developed) - the acronym seems an unnecessarily ad hominem jibe - and is it really possible to develop mathematical models without being educated?

There are a few oddities and omissions. One of Palmer's big points in The Primacy of Doubt is the oddity that economics hasn't taken up ensemble forecasting - something that isn't mentioned here. The way (mathematical) chaos is presented is also a little odd - it's mostly referred to as 'the butterfly effect', which is really only a specific example of a potential (though relatively unlikely) impact of a chaotic system. Thompson also calls chaotic systems complex, yet they can be surprisingly simple. It's also unfortunate when describing the limitations of vaccine modelling there is no mention of a point emphasised in the scientific journal Nature: the way surface transmission and cleaning continued to be pushed many months after there was clear evidence that transmission was primarily airborne. 

Thompson's enthusiasm for diversity has one notable exception that throws into doubt her concept that the best way to use models is to have more intuitive human input from academics to interpret and modify the results. She has an impressive list of diversity requirements - age, social class, background, gender and race for those academics. But she omits the diversity elephant in the room, which is political leanings. When the vast majority of academics are politically left wing, surely this too needs to be taken into account.

Overall, some interesting points, but a dry academic writing style combined with some limitations means that it has less impact than the books mentioned above.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

  1. Just managed to get through the first chapter which was painful given the writing style and the mistakes. Apparently she worked on epidemic models during Covid-19 and yet says epidemics grow exponentially which is against the model equations never mind the laws of Maths and epidemiology. Doesn't understand which conditions are initial conditions. Complains about modelling being WEIRD when lots of cultures had astronomers before contact with the West and so, presumably, astronomical models, their grander buildings may have required engineering models and I'm sure that there are plenty more examples.

    There's a YouTube video plugging the book and the author came across as woolly so I put off buying a copy having previously seen lots of marketing hype. Somewhat regretting my purchase decision now as I'm not sure that I'll finish the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have a copy to hand, so don't know the context of the exponential growth, but there seems good support that pandemics are well represented by exponential models in the early stages - see, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575103/

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...

Andrew Jaffe - Five way interview

Andrew Jaffe is professor of astrophysics and cosmology at Imperial College, London and director of the Imperial Centre for Inference and Cosmology. His new book is The Random Universe. Why science? I’ve always been interested in science, in particular in  astronomy, astrophysics, and space. One of my earliest memories - back in nursery school in New Jersey, I think - was watching one of the moon launches. I wanted that excitement to be part of my life! I never got to be an astronaut, but I did get to be part of the Planck Satellite team, and was privileged to be able to travel to the ESA Spaceport in French Guiana to watch the launch.  In between, I was lucky enough to have a supportive family, get a good education, and find inspiring teachers, mentors, and collaborators. They helped me model the universe, and helped me learn how to refine those models in the face of experimental and observational evidence. That is, they taught me to be a scientist. Why this book? The Random...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...