| Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life |  | Author: Theodore M. Porter
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Category: Book
This item is no longer available
Avg. Customer Rating:  2 reviews
Format: Import
Media: Unbound
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
ISBN: 1400806321
EAN: 9781400806324
ASIN: 1400806321
Publication Date: February 2001
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Book Description
This investigation of the overwhelming appeal of quantification in the modern world discusses the development of cultural meanings of objectivity over two centuries. How are we to account for the current prestige and power of quantitative methods? The usual answer is that quantification is seen as desirable in social and economic investigation as a result of its successes in the study of nature. Theodore Porter is not content with this. Why should the kind of success achieved in the study of stars, molecules, or cells be an attractive model for research on human societies? he asks. And, indeed, how should we understand the pervasiveness of quantification in the sciences of nature? In his view, we should look in the reverse direction: comprehending the attractions of quantification in business, government, and social research will teach us something new about its role in psychology, physics, and medicine. Drawing on a wide range of examples from the laboratory and from the worlds of accounting, insurance, cost-benefit analysis, and civil engineering, Porter shows that it is "exactly wrong" to interpret the drive for quantitative rigor as inherent somehow in the activity of science except where political and social pressures force compromise. Instead, quantification grows from attempts to develop a strategy of impersonality in response to pressures from outside. Objectivity derives its impetus from cultural contexts, quantification becoming most important where elites are weak, where private negotiation is suspect, and where trust is in short supply.
Download Description
This investigation of the overwhelming appeal of quantification in the modern world discusses the development of cultural meanings of objectivity over two centuries. How are we to account for the current prestige and power of quantitative methods? The usual answer is that quantification is seen as desirable in social and economic investigation as a result of its successes in the study of nature. Theodore Porter is not content with this. Why should the kind of success achieved in the study of stars, molecules, or cells be an attractive model for research on human societies? he asks. And, indeed, how should we understand the pervasiveness of quantification in the sciences of nature? In his view, we should look in the reverse direction: comprehending the attractions of quantification in business, government, and social research will teach us something new about its role in psychology, physics, and medicine. Drawing on a wide range of examples from the laboratory and from the worlds of accounting, insurance, cost-benefit analysis, and civil engineering, Porter shows that it is "exactly wrong" to interpret the drive for quantitative rigor as inherent somehow in the activity of science except where political and social pressures force compromise. Instead, quantification grows from attempts to develop a strategy of impersonality in response to pressures from outside. Objectivity derives its impetus from cultural contexts, quantification becoming most important where elites are weak, where private negotiation is suspect, and where trust is in short supply.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Interesting thesis, lumpy evidence, dense style July 9, 2007
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
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 book, in fact.) But his presentation of the expanded thesis, while suggestive and intriguing, is relatively rushed. It relies mainly on secondary sources and occupies only the last 30 pages out of 230 pages of text. Here is where more detail would have been a blessing.
As for style, it's quite heavy and stiff throughout the book. Unlike Philip Mirowski, many of whose themes and concerns are similar to Porter's, but who manages to be funny even when he's being pompous, Porter always sounds here as if he takes his subject too seriously. (Maybe he's lightened up since writing this work?) Compounding the stylistic problem, or maybe causing it, is that Porter seems never to have met a cultural theorist he didn't like. There's even an unnecessary, but politically correct, digression on multiculturalism, complete with reference to Michel Foucault. And expect to be puzzled by the book's concluding sentence unless you know the difference between Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft (in German, no less), which is nowhere explained or even mentioned prior to this culminating point. That Porter ends with such an erudite reference at the very moment when he should be hitting the ball out of the park is an unfortunate epitome of the book's mandarin approach.
 The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life December 28, 2003
9 out of 10 found this review helpful
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.
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 - RailroadBookstore.com | |
