Archive for Enlightenment

Philosophies, Puzzles and Paradoxes [book review]

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2024 by xi'an

Yudi Pawitan and Youngjo Lee have written a book that recently caught my attention within the CRC Press list of new publications. Because philosophy, puzzles, and paradoxes are definitely of interest to me (as shown by numerous entries in the ‘Og!). The subtitle of said book is A Statistician’s Search for Truth.

Reviews of the book are already available, with for instance Andrew Gelman stating that he disagrees “with much of this book, but it’s an entertaining and thought-provoking introduction to some challenging questions” or Stephen Senn starting the foreword with “This is a remarkable book: wide-ranging, ambitious, challenging and profound but also intriguing, fascinating and original.” (Senn is also cited within the book for his discussion of our revisit of Harold Jeffreys’ Theory of Probability.) Nice cover as well (albeit I could not trace the origin of it, inside or outside the book.)

The book is made of three parts, one on the philosophical approaches to truth, scientific discovery, deduction, and induction, a second one on probability theories, with philosophical motivations, Bayesian inference, and likelihood-based inference, and a third section on paradoxes. Given that both authors are senior authors who have contributed to likelihood inference throughout their career, incl. the books In All Likelihood and Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects, the likelihood approach is somewhat privileged against other statistical resolutions towards the resolution of the paradoxes, with a defence of confidence distributions and a chapter on epistemic confidence that mostly stems from recent papers by the authors, like Pawitan et al.  (2023) and Lee and Lee (2023). I find the discussion therein somewhat unclear, esp. because the same notation Pr(.) is employed for different probability notions.

“Epistemic confidence is the objective measure of uncertainty that’s attached to single events, where the objectivity is based on a consensus of rational minds.” (p.197)

The philosophy part is following the (European) Enlightenment in producing more and more involved discussions on reason, knowledge and scientific discovery. This exploration is an easy read, as it does not delve particularly deeply in the arguments of Kant, Hume, or Popper. With the apparently unescapable mention of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, including a sausage citation from Poincaré that reminded of that strip from Tintin in America:which, most probably, he would have applied to Ais! Several sections about pseudo-rational attempts to demonstrate the existence of Dog could have been skipped as well.

The part of probability already considers paradoxes which, like the subsequent ones are mostly the consequence of using natural (and hence ambiguous) languages instead of mathematical descriptions—incl. the statement of the Likelihood Principle. It also discusses Keynes’ logical (or imprecise) probabilities, briefly if appropriately given the pessimistic views of young Keynes on the assessment of the probability of an event. Savage is privileged enough to enjoy an entire chapter discussing his 1950’s axioms leading to the existence of a (subjective)  prior on “the states of the world”. This is followed by a chapter on Inverse probability (aka Bayesian statistics), where the authors consider Bayes’ 1763 Essay to have stayed mostly unnoticed till  the beginning of the 20th Century, which sounds a somewhat subjective judgement. (And as uncovered by Steve Stiegler, the original title of the Essay was indeed intended as a reply to Hume.) A further if short chapter is dedicated to the search for the prior distribution. Which thus gives the misguided impression that there should exist such a thing, rather than acknowledging that Bayesian statements are relative to the prior measure. The remainder of the discussion on invariant and reference priors is however mostly standard. Except when falling for the marginalisation paradox when stating that a product of improper priors implies independence on p.144.

The paradoxes examined in the final part are Allais’ (an alumni of Lycée Lakanal!), and Ellsberg’s, avatars of the Saint Petersburg paradox and referring to failing to adhere to rational decision-making and not in the least to statistics. Conjunction and inclusion “fallacious fallacies”, which are central to Kahneman’s Thinking fast and slow bestseller, and attributed to reasoning in terms of likelihood rather than of probability (without accounting for multiple testing on p.228). A whole if short chapter on the Monty Hall and three prisoners paradoxes, another predictable occurrence in a book on reasoning paradoxes. Again mostly a matter of poor wording, plus relying on the choice of an underlying probability model, for which the authors again follow a likelihood approach, the number of the prize door or of the freed prisoner being the parameter. Kyburg’s (very weak) lottery paradox and related forensic paradoxes, concluding with the rejection of judgements based solely on probability reasoning. Hempel’s paradox of the ravens, a priori unrelated with statistical evidence, but turned into one by squeezing in some sampling models. Finishing with the (envelope) exchange paradox, where the authors refuse to put a prior on the unknown parameter but end up with a solution equivalent to adopting a Jeffreys prior.

In conclusion, this attempt at connecting statistical inference and philosophy, probability concepts and rational decision making, paradoxes and modelling, within a single book is academically sound and overall enjoyable, if not outstanding or remarkable as it does not constitute a radical move away from existing analyses of those classical paradoxes. Furthermore, I find the paradoxes overwhelmingly distant from genuine statistical settings and involving a rather stretched notion of data. Still, methinks I will keep this book in my bookcase, rather than leaving it for the taking in the department coffee room!

As I was completing the book and getting towards writing this book review, I also noticed a two page blurb in Significance (May 2024 issue) written by the authors on their book. (which happens rather frequently with this magazine). Unsurprisingly, the contents provd mostly extracted from the preface and introduction With a nice ravens picture (in conjunction with the raven paradox).

[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version may eventually appear in my Books Review section in CHANCE.]

Leave a comment »

The [errors in the] error of truth [book review]

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 10, 2021 by xi'an

OUP sent me this book, The error of truth by Steven Osterling, for review. It is a story about the “astonishing” development of quantitative thinking in the past two centuries. Unfortunately, I found it to be one of the worst books I have read on the history of sciences…

To start with the rather obvious part, I find the scholarship behind the book quite shoddy as the author continuously brings in items of historical tidbits to support his overall narrative and sometimes fills gaps on his own. It often feels like the material comes from Wikipedia, despite expressing a critical view of the on-line encyclopedia. The [long] quote below is presumably the most shocking historical blunder, as the terror era marks the climax of the French Revolution, rather than the last fight of the French monarchy. Robespierre was the head of the Jacobins, the most radical revolutionaries at the time, and one of the Assembly members who voted for the execution of Louis XIV, which took place before the Terror. And later started to eliminate his political opponents, until he found himself on the guillotine!

“The monarchy fought back with almost unimaginable savagery. They ordered French troops to carry out a bloody campaign in which many thousands of protesters were killed. Any peasant even remotely suspected of not supporting the government was brutally killed by the soldiers; many were shot at point-blank range. The crackdown’s most intense period was a horrific ten-month Reign of Terror (“la Terreur”) during which the government guillotined untold masses (some estimates are as high as 5,000) of its own citizens as a means to control them. One of the architects of the Reign of Terror was Maximilien Robespierre, a French nobleman and lifelong politician. He explained the government’s slaughter in unbelievable terms, as “justified terror . . . [and] an emanation of virtue” (quoted in Linton 2006). Slowly, however, over the next few years, the people gained control. In the end, many nobles, including King Louis XVI and his wife Marie-Antoinette, were themselves executed by guillotining”

Obviously, this absolute misinterpretation does not matter (very) much for the (hi)story of quantification (and uncertainty assessment), but it demonstrates a lack of expertise of the author. And sap whatever trust one could have in new details he brings to light (life?). As for instance when stating

“Bayes did a lot of his developmental work while tutoring students in local pubs. He was a respected teacher. Taking advantage of his immediate resources (in his circumstance, a billiard table), he taught his theorem to many.”

which does not sound very plausible. I never heard that Bayes had students  or went to pubs or exposed his result to many before its posthumous publication… Or when Voltaire (who died in 1778) is considered as seventeenth-century precursor of the Enlightenment. Or when John Graunt, true member of the Royal Society, is given as a member of the Académie des Sciences. Or when Quetelet is presented as French and as a student of Laplace.

The maths explanations are also puzzling, from the law of large numbers illustrated by six observations, and wrongly expressed (p.54) as

\bar{X}_n+\mu\qquad\text{when}\qquad n\longrightarrow\infty

to  the Saint-Petersbourg paradox being seen as inverse probability, to a botched description of the central limit theorem  (p.59), including the meaningless equation (p.60)

\gamma_n=\frac{2^{2n}}{\pi}\int_0^\pi~\cos^{2n} t\,\text dt

to de Moivre‘s theorem being given as Taylor’s expansion

f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{f^{(n)}(a)}{n!}(z-a)^2

and as his derivation of the concept of variance, to another botched depiction of the difference between Bayesian and frequentist statistics, incl. the usual horror

P(68.5<70<71.5)=95%

to independence being presented as a non-linear relation (p.111), to the conspicuous absence of Pythagoras in the regression chapter, to attributing to Gauss the concept of a probability density (when Simpson, Bayes, Laplace used it as well), to another highly confusing verbal explanation of densities, including a potential confusion between different representations of a distribution (Fig. 9.6) and the existence of distributions other than the Gaussian distribution, to another error in writing the Gaussian pdf (p.157),

f(x)=\dfrac{e^{-(z-\mu)^2}\big/2\sigma^2}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}

to yet another error in the item response probability (p.301), and.. to completely missing the distinction between the map and the territory, i.e., the probabilistic model and the real world (“Truth”), which may be the most important shortcoming of the book.

The style is somewhat heavy, with many repetitions about the greatness of the characters involved in the story, and some degree of license in bringing them within the narrative of the book. The historical determinism of this narrative is indeed strong, with a tendency to link characters more than they were, and to make them greater than life. Which is a usual drawback of such books, along with the profuse apologies for presenting a few mathematical formulas!

The overall presentation further has a Victorian and conservative flavour in its adoration of great names, an almost exclusive centering on Western Europe, a patriarchal tone (“It was common for them to assist their husbands in some way or another”, p.44; Marie Curie “agreed to the marriage, believing it would help her keep her laboratory position”, p.283), a defense of the empowerment allowed by the Industrial Revolution and of the positive sides of colonialism and of the Western expansion of the USA, including the invention of Coca Cola as a landmark in the march to Progress!, to the fall of the (communist) Eastern Block being attributed to Ronald Reagan, Karol Wojtyła, and Margaret Thatcher, to the Bell Curve being written by respected professors with solid scholarship, if controversial, to missing the Ottoman Enlightenment and being particularly disparaging about the Middle East, to dismissing Galton’s eugenism as a later year misguided enthusiasm (and side-stepping the issue of Pearson’s and Fisher’s eugenic views),

Another recurrent if minor problem is the poor recording of dates and years when introducing an event or a new character. And the quotes referring to the current edition or translation instead of the original year as, e.g., Bernoulli (1954). Or even better!, Bayes and Price (1963).

[Disclaimer about potential self-plagiarism: this post or an edited version will eventually appear in my Book Review section in CHANCE.]

1 Comment »