Skip to main content

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 the heads of a pin becomes both enthralling and relatively easy to understand. You may have to re-read a few sentences, because there is a bit of a head-scrambling concept at the heart of the debate - but it's well worth it.

A trivial way of representing the difference between Bayesian and frequentist statistics is how you respond to the question 'What's the chance of the result being a head?' when looking at a coin that has already been tossed, but that you haven't seen. Bayesian statistics takes into account what you already know. As you don't know what the outcome is, you can only realistically say it's 50:50, or 0.5 in the usual mathematical representation. By contrast, frequentist statistics says that as the coin has been tossed, it is definitely heads or tails with probability 1... but we can't say which. This seems perhaps unimportant - but the distinction becomes crucial when considering the outcome of scientific studies.

Thankfully, Chivers goes into in significant detail the problem that arises because in most scientific use of (frequentist) probability, what the results show is not what we actually want to know. In the social sciences, a marker for a result being 'significant' is a p-value of less that 0.05. This means that if the null hypothesis is true (the effect you are considering doesn't exist), then you would only get this result 1 in 20 times or less. But what we really want to know is not the chance of this result if the hypothesis is true, but rather what's the chance that the hypothesis is true - and that's a totally different thing.

Chivers gives the example of 'it's the difference between "There's only a 1 in 8 billion chance that a given human is the Pope" and "There's only a 1 in 8 billion chance that the Pope is human"'. At risk of repetition because it's so important, frequentist statistics, as used by most scientists, tells us the chance of getting the result if the hypothesis is true; Bayesian statistics works out what the chance is of the hypothesis being true - which most would say is what we really want to know. In fact, as Chivers points out, most scientists don't even know that they aren't showing the chance of the hypothesis being true - and this even true of many textbooks for scientists on how to use statistics.

At this point, most normal humans would say 'Why don't those stupid scientists use Bayes?' But there is a catch. To be able to find how likely the hypothesis is, we need a 'prior probability' - a starting point which Bayes' theorem then modifies using the evidence we have. This feels subjective, and for the first attempt at a study it certainly can be. But, as Chivers points out, in many scientific studies there is existing evidence to provide that starting point - the frequentist approach throws away this useful knowledge.

Is the book perfect? Well, I suspect as a goodish Bayesian I can never say something is perfect. I found it hard to engage with an overlong chapter called 'the Bayesian brain' that is not about using Bayes, but rather trying to show that our brains take this approach, which all felt a bit too hypothetical for me. And Chivers repeats the oft-seen attack on poor old Fred Hoyle, taking his comment about evolution and 'a whirlwind passing through a junkyard creating a Boeing 747' in a way that oversimplifies Hoyle's original meaning. But these are trivial concerns.

I can't remember when I last enjoyed a popular maths book so much. It's a delight.

* Not entirely a closet Bayesian - my book Dice World includes an experiment using Bayesian statistics to work out what kind of dog I have, given a mug that's on my desk.

Hardback:   
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

Charge - Frank Close ****

Anyone who writes popular science books that are so thick they could act as doorstops should pay more attention to what Frank Close achieves. In a slim, small volume he manages to pack in a huge amount of information without compromising at all on quality. His latest such book is Charge - dealing with various types of charge from electrical to colour (in the quark sense). This starts off brilliantly with a point about electrical charge that had never occurred to me. Close tells us that with every breath you inhale sufficient electrons to absorb a charge of around 15,000 coulombs 'enough to spark 1000 bolts of lightning'. And if breathing steadily, the equivalent current would be about 3,000 amps. Thankfully, though, the balancing positive charge from the nucleus means you don't fry. (This is slightly misleading as the comparison with lightning only works if you consider charge - the current in a lightning bolt is typically about 10 times higher as it lasts a much briefer t
Post a Comment
Read more

A Crack in Everything - Marcus Chown *****

This is a book about black holes - and there are two ways to look at these amazing phenomena. One is to meander about in endless speculation concerning firewalls and holographic universes and the like, where there is no basis in observation, only mathematical magic. This, for me, is often closer to science fiction than science fact. The alternative, which is what Marcus Chown does so well here (apart from a single chapter), is to explore the aspects of theory that have observational evidence to back them up - and he does it wonderfully. I'm reminded in a way of the play The Audience which was the predecessor to The Crown . In the play, we see a series of moments in history when Queen Elizabeth II is meeting with her prime ministers, giving a view of what was happening in life and politics at that point in time. Here, Chown takes us to visit various breakthroughs over the last 100 or so years when a step was made in the understanding of black holes.  The first few are around the ba
Post a Comment
Read more

The Atomic Human - Neil Lawrence ****

This is a real curate’s egg of a book. Let’s start with the title - it feels totally wrong for what the book’s about. ‘The Atomic Human’ conjures up some second rate superhero. What Neil Lawrence is getting at is the way atoms were originally conceived as what you get when you pare back more and more until what’s left is uncuttable. The idea is that this reflects the way that artificial intelligence has cut into what’s special about being human - but there is still that core left. I think a much better analogy would have been the god of the gaps - the idea that science has taken over lots of what was once attributed to deities, leaving just a collection of gaps. At the heart of the book is an excellent point: how we as humans have great processing power in our brains but very limited bandwidth with which to communicate. By comparison, AIs have a huge amount of bandwidth to absorb vast amounts of data from the internet but can’t manage our use of understanding and context. This distinct
Post a Comment
Read more