Skip to main content

Causal Inference - Paul Rosenbaum ***

The whole business of how we can use statistics to decide if something is caused by something else is crucially important to science, whether it's about the impact of a vaccine or deciding whether or not a spray of particles in the Large Hadron Collider has been caused by the decay of a Higgs boson. 'Correlation is not causality' is a mantra of science, because it's so easy to misinterpret a causal link from things that happen close together and space and time. As a result I was delighted with the idea of what the cover describes as a 'nontechnical guide to the basic ideas of modern causal inference'.

Paul Rosenbaum starts with a driving factor - deducing the effects of medical treatments - and goes on to bring in the significance of randomised experiments versus the problems of purely observational studies, digs into covariates and ways to bring in experiment-like features to observational studies, brings up issues of replication and finishes with the impact of uncertainty and complexity. This is mostly exactly the kind of topics than should be covered in such a guide, and as such it hits spot. But, unfortunately, while it is indeed an effective introductory guide for scientists who aren't mathematicians, Rosenbaum fails on making this accessible to a nontechnical audience.

Rosenbaum quotes mathematician George Pólya as saying that we need a notation that is 'unambiguous, pregnant, easy to remember…' I would have been happier with this book if Rosenbaum had explained how a mathematical notation could possibly be pregnant. (He doesn't.) But, more importantly, the notation used is simply not easy to remember for a nontechnical audience. Within one page of it starting to be used, I had to keep looking back to see what the different parts meant. 

We are told that a causal effect is 'a comparison of outcomes' and in the first example given this is rTw - rCw. Bits of this are relatively clear. T and C are treatment and control. W is George Washington (as the example is about his being treated, then dying soon after). I'm guessing 'r' refers to result, though that term isn't used in the text, but most importantly it's not obvious why the 'causal effect' is those two variables, set to arbitrary values, with one subtracted from the other. I'm pretty familiar with algebra and statistics, but I rapidly found the symbolic representations used hard to follow - there has to be a better way if you are writing for a general audience: it appears the author doesn't know how to do this. 

The irritating thing is that Rosenbaum doesn't then make use of this representation - he's lost half the readership for no reason. The rest of the book is more descriptive, but time after time the way that examples are described is handled in a way that is going to put people off, bringing in unnecessary jargon and simply writing more like a textbook without detail. Take the opening of the jauntily headed section 'Matching for Covariates as a Method of Adjustment': 'In figure 4 [which is several pages back in a different chapter], we saw more extensive peridontal disease amongst smokers, but we were not convinced that we were witnessing an effect caused by smoking. The figure compared the peridontal disease outcomes of treated individuals and controls who were not comparable. In figures 2-3 we saw that the smokers and nonsmokers were not comparable. The simplest solution is to compare individuals who are comparable, or at least comparable in ways we can see.' 

This is a classic example of the importance of being aware of who the audience is and what the book is supposed to do. To reach that target nontechnical audience, the book would have to have been far less of a textbook light, rethinking the way the material is put across. The content is fine for a technical audience who aren't mathematicians - so this is still a useful book - but the content certainly isn't well-presented for the general public.

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more