Skip to main content

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics, was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty.

Why probability?

because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years.

Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title?

That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book arguing that people should be 'rational' and always use probability to deal with uncertainty.   

Probability often seems counter-intuitive - can you explain why?

I think it's because probability does not really exist - it had to be made up.  So no wonder it does not work as intuitively as our feeling for counts, weight, time, distance and other quantities - although even for these we can have trouble with big and small numbers.

How would you persuade a frequentist to take a more Bayesian approach?

I don't think I want to persuade them to use a different approach, but I would want them to understand the potential advantages in some circumstances of thinking in a Bayesian way.

What’s next?

This book has wrung me dry - I have put in all the ideas I have had brewing for years.  So nothing is next - I am a dried-out husk.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

Promoting the themes in the book, whether it's deconstructing luck, or arguing that probabilities do not exist as an objective properties of the world.  Except of course at the sub-atomic quantum level.  Probably.

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Interview by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Vector - Robyn Arianrhod ****

This is a remarkable book for the right audience (more on that in a moment), but one that's hard to classify. It's part history of science/maths, part popular maths and even has a smidgen of textbook about it, as it has more full-on mathematical content that a typical title for the general public usually has. What Robyn Arianrhod does in painstaking detail is to record the development of the concept of vectors, vector calculus and their big cousin tensors. These are mathematical tools that would become crucial for physics, not to mention more recently, for example, in the more exotic aspects of computing. Let's get the audience thing out of the way. Early on in the book we get a sentence beginning ‘You likely first learned integral calculus by…’ The assumption is very much that the reader already knows the basics of maths at least to A-level (level to start an undergraduate degree in a 'hard' science or maths) and has no problem with practical use of calculus. Altho

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