Skip to main content

Tom Chivers - Five Way Interview

Tom Chivers is a science writer and author. He was given Royal Statistical Society 'Statistical Excellence in Journalism' awards in 2018 and 2020, and was declared the Science Writer of the Year by the Association of British Science Writers in 2021. His two previous books are The Rationalist's Guide to the Galaxy and How to Read Numbers (with David Chivers). His latest title is Everything is Predictable.

Why statistics?

Because I want to believe true things, and I want to achieve my goals.

There are a lot of questions we can answer without statistics, and goals we can achieve without statistics – if I want to know whether the shop has milk I can go and check, and if I want to cook my children dinner I can just do it. But there are also lots of situations where, if we want to do a good job, we need statistics, and to use them carefully.

That’s true both at a policy level and at a personal one. Should the government spend billions of pounds on cancer screening? We can’t answer that without asking questions about the specificity and sensitivity of the screening, about the prevalence of the cancer, and about the impact of early diagnosis on outcomes. Should I worry about drinking a second beer on a Friday evening? We can’t answer that without asking questions about the correlations between alcohol intake and health outcomes, and whether those correlations are causal.

These questions are subtle, and using statistics to answer them is hard, and you can easily be led astray. But, as the saying goes, while it is easy to lie with statistics, it is even easier to lie without them.

Why this book?

I wish I had a noble reason, but I started writing it out of sheer spite. In 2021 my second book was published, and it had a chapter on Bayes. I rewrote that chapter into a feature for the Observer, and an editor put in the subheading the phrase “an obscure theorem”. People went absolutely crazy and I had a three-day Twitterstorm of professors of biostatistics and stuff yelling at me, saying “how can this be obscure, I, a professor of biostatistics, use it all the time,” and so on.

So in a fit of pique I immediately went and pitched a book about Bayes to my publishers.

But I do think it’s the most important one-line equation in the world. It describes all of decision theory; it describes how we decide what is true or not in science (even if not all scientists want to use it); it dissolves vast philosophical conundrums; it contains within it all of propositional logic, all the “all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, ergo Socrates is mortal” stuff; and it describes how our brains work! For something made entirely out of mathematical operations my eight-year-old daughter could do easily, that’s pretty impressive.

Is there any realistic possibility that scientific studies will move away from frequentist statistics?

Not entirely, and probably that’s fine.You don’t need to use Bayes if you’re looking for the Higgs boson with the Large Hadron Collider — you have so much data that any prior would be washed out anyway. And sometimes finding a prior in a principled way might be tricky.

But the world is increasingly Bayesian — the Pfizer COVID vaccine trials were run in a very Bayesian way, for instance. And the growth of probabilistic programming languages makes Bayesian reasoning easier and easier for scientists to do. So I think Bayesianism will continue to make headway, because it feels less bolted together.

What’s next?

My friend Stuart and I run a podcast, called The Studies Show, in which we look at controversial or interesting scientific topics and try to work out the evidence behind them. We hope relatively soon to turn that into a radio documentary. And there is an idea for another book. Plus there’s the day job — Semafor’s Flagship newsletter, a vital daily roundup of the most important news in the world, which I thoroughly commend to the readers.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

Tough question! I hate to be predictable (as it were) but I am absolutely blown away by the speed of progress in AI, and I find people who profess to cynicism about it (“It’s just a stochastic parrot” or “we were told it would get better quickly but it’s been six months and it’s still not only passing the bar exam at the 50th percentile”) absolutely baffling. My first book was about AI. I wrote it in 2017 and it was published in 2019. That’s really not very long ago but the stuff we see now is just unrecognisable from what I was writing about then. It was still a big deal that AI image classifiers could tell the difference between a cat and a dog!

I could understand being scared of AI — it’s a huge deal and could change the world in frightening, even dangerous ways (the topic of that book, The Rationalist’s Guide to the Galaxy, was whether it will kill us all; I concluded that that’s not a crazy thing to worry about). But the idea of being unimpressed or unexcited is just bizarre to me.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more