## Archive for book cover

## human resource [Nature cover]

Posted in Statistics with tags book cover, diversity, DNA helix, exome, genetic variation, Human Genetics, human genome, human variation, Nature, protein coding, sequencing on August 7, 2020 by xi'an## Principles of scientific methods [not a book review]

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags book cover, book review, CHANCE, induction, inference, Mark Chang, paradoxes, scientific methods, swarm algorithms, textbook, wikipedia on November 11, 2014 by xi'an**M**ark Chang, author of *Paradoxes in Scientific Inference* and vice-president of AMAG Pharmaceuticals, has written another book entitled *Principles of Scientific Methods*. As was clear from my CHANCE review of *Paradoxes in Scientific Inference*, I did not find much appeal in this earlier book, even after the author wrote a reply (first posted on this blog and later printed in CHANCE). Hence a rather strong reluctance [of mine] to engage into another highly critical review when I received this new opus by the same author. *[And the brainwave cover just put me off even further, although I do not want to start a review by criticising the cover, it did not go that well with the previous attempts!]*

After going through *Principles of Scientific Methods*, I became ever more bemused about the reason(s) for writing or publishing such a book, to the point I decided not to write a CHANCE review on it… (But, having spent some Métro rides on it, I still want to discuss why. Read at your own peril!)

## paradoxes in scientific inference

Posted in Books, Statistics, University life with tags Allan Birnbaum, book cover, book reviews, CHANCE, Deborah Mayo, Dickey-Savage ratio, Error and Inference, Fermat, Likelihood Principle, p-values, paradoxes, scientific inference, Shigeo Fukuda, Simpson's paradox on November 23, 2012 by xi'an**T**his CRC Press book was sent to me for review in CHANCE: *Paradoxes in Scientific Inference* is written by Mark Chang, vice-president of AMAG Pharmaceuticals. The topic of scientific paradoxes is one of my primary interests and I have learned a lot by looking at Lindley-Jeffreys and Savage-Dickey paradoxes. However, I did not find a renewed sense of excitement when reading the book. The very first (and maybe the best!) paradox with *Paradoxes in Scientific Inference* is that it is a book from the future! Indeed, its copyright year is 2013 (!), although I got it a few months ago. (Not mentioning here the cover mimicking Escher’s “paradoxical” pictures with dices. A sculpture due to Shigeo Fukuda and apparently not quoted in the book. As I do not want to get into another dice cover polemic, I will abstain from further comments!)

**N**ow, getting into a deeper level of criticism (!), I find the book very uneven and overall quite disappointing. (Even missing in its statistical foundations.) Esp. given my initial level of excitement about the topic!

**F**irst, there is a tendency to turn *everything* into a paradox: obviously, when writing a book about paradoxes, everything looks like a paradox! This means bringing into the picture every paradox known to man and then some, i.e., things that are either un-paradoxical (e.g., Gödel’s incompleteness result) or uninteresting in a scientific book (e.g., the birthday paradox, which may be surprising but is far from a paradox!). Fermat’s theorem is also quoted as a paradox, even though there is nothing in the text indicating in which sense it is a paradox. (Or is it because it is simple to express, hard to prove?!) Similarly, Brownian motion is considered a paradox, as “*reconcil[ing] the paradox between two of the greatest theories of physics (…): thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gases*” (p.51) For instance, the author considers the MLE being biased to be a paradox (p.117), while omitting the much more substantial “paradox” of the non-existence of unbiased estimators of most parameters—which simply means unbiasedness is irrelevant. Or the other even more puzzling “paradox” that the secondary MLE derived from the likelihood associated with the distribution of a primary MLE may differ from the primary. (My favourite!)

“*When the null hypothesis is rejected, the p-value is the probability of the type I error.*” *Paradoxes in Scientific Inference* (p.105)

“*The p-value is the conditional probability given H _{0}.” Paradoxes in Scientific Inference (p.106)*

**S**econd, the depth of the statistical analysis in the book is often found missing. For instance, Simpson’s paradox is not analysed from a statistical perspective, only reported as a fact. Sticking to statistics, take for instance the discussion of Lindley’s paradox. The author seems to think that the problem is with the different conclusions produced by the frequentist, likelihood, and Bayesian analyses (p.122). This is completely wrong: Lindley’s (or Lindley-Jeffreys‘s) paradox is about the lack of significance of Bayes factors based on improper priors. Similarly, when the likelihood ratio test is introduced, the reference threshold is given as equal to 1 and no mention is later made of compensating for different degrees of freedom/against over-fitting. The discussion about *p*-values is equally garbled, witness the above quote which (a) conditions upon the rejection and (b) ignores the dependence of the *p*-value on a realized random variable. Continue reading

## Surprising recycling!

Posted in Books, pictures with tags book cover, Patrick Rothfuss, The Wise Man's Fear on May 15, 2011 by xi'an**T**he US cover of Patrick Rothfuss’ ** The Wise Man’s Fear** is this above gloomy passage in what appears to be a medieval fortified city… (It could be Edinburgh, it could be Saint-Malo, any idea anyone?!) So I am surprised the same picture is used for another 2004 book,

**, which is a collection of short stories edited by Dana Stabenow, featuring Anne Perry, Charlaine Harris, and others…**

*Powers of Detection***I**t is not exactly the same picture, since taken from under a covered passage, but it is definitely the same place! It is unlikely that ** Powers of Detection** has such an audience as to confuse Rothfuss’ fans, but I wonder if this will require a change of cover for the second printing of

**.**

*The Wise Man’s Fear*