Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life

Theodore Porter makes the stimulating observation that "objectivity" is more prized in a democratic political culture based on competing interests than in autocratic cultures. He backs this up with a great deal of evidence -- perhaps too much -- by comparing two bureaucracies, the Corps des Ponts et Chaussees (CPS) in 19th Century France, and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)in 20th Century America. The CPS was secure in its elite status; no one outside their community was second-guessing their judgment. Their rigorous mathematical education served more as evidence of a general level of culture, like knowledge of Greek or Latin, than as their main lens for viewing the world. By focusing on CPS debates about the appropriate placement of rail lines in France, Porter shows that CPS engineers used quantitative arguments as only one persuasive technique among many, and as only one type of input out of many that helped them to formulate their professional judgment. OTOH, the ACE's decisions about dam placements were under constant attack from various industry groups, other Federal bureaucracies, and the Congressmen who represented those other interests. As a result, the ACE gradually took refuge in cost-benefit analyses that were "objective" in the sense that they followed fixed and published rules (even if there was still a lot of opportunity to fiddle the figures). Ultimately, the ACE became proud to ignore "intangibles" -- the stuff that doesn't fit so easily into the rules -- even though, it is hinted, these should have been some of the most important considerations for the dam-placement decisions. This put the ACE in contrast not only to the CPS but even to 19th Century actuaries, whom Porter shows to have relied on their statistical tables as only one input among many other, less quantifiable judgments in making decisions about whom to insure (a quite surprising and interesting revelation). Porter relied on many arcane and imaginative primary sources for his discussions of CPS and ACE, including actuarial trade journals, memoirs of the construction of rather discrete railway segments, and even 19th Century French farces (to illustrate popular attitudes toward statisticians). However, the extreme length and depth of his descriptions of the debates about rail lines and dams were overkill to make his case, since the substance of the decisions was less important than the bureaucracies' style of argumentation. These passages are also often excruciating to read, since the book doesn't include a single map, diagram or illustration of any kind. I really wished he'd omitted many of the details or at least relegated them to an appendix. At the end of the book, Porter expands his thesis to include the social construction of quantities in social science and laboratory science, especially physical science. That's led to this book having been cited hundreds of times since its publication in 1994. (It was a cite in such a context that led me to read the bo

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.