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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more