Trust in Numbers

Rating:
Summary: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life
Review: We have become a nation infatuated by, even dominated by, numbers. Our newspapers spew torrents of "statistics" - so many billions of dollars of this, or such and such percentage of that - and we humbly accept what we would certainly protest if it were presented in plain English.

It wasn't always so. Ted Porter, in "Trust in Numbers", goes back in time and traces the history of quantification from farmers and merchants, to engineers and accountants, and finally to the scientific community. It's tempting to assuming that this represents progress, an improvement in our ability and willingness to be objective and accurate.

"The language of pure and applied science suggests that quantitative professionals pursue rigor and objectivity except so far as political pressures force them to compromise their ideals. But this is exactly wrong. Objectivity derives its impetus, and also its shape and meaning, from cultural, including political, contexts."

Quantification, asserts Porter, is a "social technology". It arises out of the fundamental mistrust of strangers for one another as "communities" of experts become fractured and need to assert their credentials in the face of untrusting bureaucracy.

Porter quotes Richard Hammond: "In a country where the distrust of government is rife, the temptation to substitute supposedly impersonal calculation for personal, responsible decisions and to rely on the expert rather than size up the situation by oneself, cannot be but exceedingly strong."

This might all be interesting, but acceptable, if "objective" quantification were truly as pure and reliable as we assume. However, Porter goes into some detail into the difficulties the French Corps des Ponts et Chaussées and the US Corps of Engineers have had in quantifying the effect of their work on communities in order to cost justify them. If this book had been written more recently, it might have also noted the difficulties Enron and WorldCom had in quantifying their work, even under the eagle eyes of the SEC and so many "financial experts".

If Porter is correct in his interpretation of the reason for our unquestioning and lazy trust in numbers, then we need to drastically alter our education system. Here's Porter quoting Richard Hofstadter:

"The truth is that much of American education aims, simply and brazenly, to turn out experts who are not experts or men of culture at all."

The author of "Trust in Numbers" need never fear such derogation. His book is erudite and elegant and a pleasure to read.