Statistical Catfights and The

Spirit Level

Ben Baumberg (Kent) & Robert

de Vries (Oxford)

- Sympathetic to the argument- Inspired by public engagement

But...

1. Is The Spirit Level’s argument true?

2. Has The Spirit Level politicised scientific debate?

IS THE SPIRIT LEVEL TRUE?

Part One

Japan Norway Sweden United Kingdom United States0

10

20

30

40

50Bi

rths

per

1,0

00 w

omen

15-

19

Japan Norway Sweden United Kingdom United States0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

of a

dults

ove

rwie

ght

20 25 30 35 40 45 5075

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

80.8415

79.331779.3276

80.2927

77.8439

78.8171

80.1146

78.931779.239

81.5805

81.1024

80.1512

80.5805

81.9251

78.4327

79.3463

79.851280.0415000000001

78.070778.2961

77.6122

80.1707

80.5463

79.0488

77.339

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

Life

exp

ecta

ncy

at b

irth

Source: SWIID & WDI

r=0.12

20 25 30 35 40 45 5075

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

80.8415

79.331779.3276

80.2927

77.8439

78.8171

80.1146

78.931779.239

81.1024

80.1512

80.5805

81.9251

78.4327

79.3463

79.851280.0415000000001

78.070778.2961

77.6122

80.1707

80.5463

79.0488

77.339

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

Life

exp

ecta

ncy

at b

irth

Source: SWIID & WDI

r=-0.12

20 25 30 35 40 45 500.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

4.7

44

5.2

4.1

3

3.83.9

4.8

22.3

4.4

3.8

2.8

4.54.4

5.4

3.2

3.8

8

3.4

4.8

2.8

5.1

6.8

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

Infa

nt m

orta

lity

(per

1,0

00 li

ve b

irths

)

Source: SWIID & WDI

r=0.36

20 25 30 35 40 45 500

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

16.5824

13.071814.9572 14.3624

6.219

10.8418

7.50768.907

11.2104

3.5202

15.6348 14.8388

6.7965.334

2.2422

5.86559999999999

29.3956

9.2364

18.1476

58.303

6.387

11.7578

6.8236

28.5852

41.9452

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

Birt

hs p

er 1

,000

wom

en 1

5-19

Source: SWIID & WDI

r=0.46

20 25 30 35 40 45 500

5

10

15

20

25

1.269390.655961000000001

2.1221 2.05369

0.97796

2.269111.60009

1.05281 1.180350.499276000000001

1.01098

2.46799

1.039690.508731

2.25533

1.20818 1.475530.713776000000001

1.28039

20.3861

0.998959 1.193670.8970751.48498

5.63978

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

Hom

icid

es p

er 1

00,0

00 p

opul

ation

Source: SWIID & UNODC

r=0.44

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 400

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1.26939

0.655961000000001

2.12212.05369

0.97796

2.26911

1.60009

1.05281

1.18035

1.01098

2.46799

1.03969

0.508731

2.25533

1.20818

1.47553

0.713776000000001

1.28039

0.998959

1.19367

0.897075

1.48498

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

Hom

icid

es p

er 1

00,0

00 p

opul

ation

Source: SWIID & UNODC

r=0.31

Source: SWIID & OECD programme for international student assessment

r=-0.16

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

519.908

505.483999999999

520.349

527.007

513.025999999999

548.357999999999

495.538

503.791

459.202

505.545

441.859

461.689

523.102999999999

547.457999999999

530.654

521.989

489.846

466.161

504.456

479.958

502.356

495.444

474.352

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

Mea

n PI

SA m

aths

sco

re a

t age

15

Source: SWIID & WHO

r=-0.38

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 400

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

67.3662

57.0937

46.32

61.095

45.7843

58.6523

40.1357

60.0587

68.4905

60.373857.3485

45.5051

22.5502

42.0097

45.9694

68.4124

49.1004

53.8417

59.761

51.754249.7313

63.7985000000001

74.0812

Inequality (Gini in 2005)

% o

f ove

r 15s

ove

rwei

ght

17

1. Negative outcomes correlate with each other

2. Unequal countries tend to do worse

3. Relationship unlikely to be entirely due toa) Povertyb) Ethnic heterogeneityc) GDPd) Compositional effect of individual income

4. Feelings of inferiority are harmful

HAS THE SPIRIT LEVEL POLITICISED SCIENTIFIC DEBATE?

Part Two

19

Truth vs. ‘social critique’“Scientists seeking political victories through science may find this strategy expedient in the short term, but over the long run it may diminish the constructive role that scientific expertise can play in the policy process”

Roger Pielke Jr, 2004:407

20

Potential sources of politicisation

1. Uncertainty

2. Consensus

3. Assertion of scientific authority

4. Is vs. Ought

21

Potential sources of politicisation

1. Uncertainty

2. Consensus

3. Assertion of scientific authority

4. Is vs. Ought

• Rob’s points–Priors vs. Data

• More research?

Unlikely to ever have fully convincing evidence in either direction...

23

?How can we enter public debate in areas where evidence is highly uncertain?

24

Potential sources of politicisation

1. Uncertainty

2. Consensus

3. Assertion of scientific authority

4. Is vs. Ought

25

Political disagreement

26

Academic disagreement

Gol

dtho

rpe,

Ro

wlin

gson

, Lan

e Ke

nwor

thy,

Dea

ton,

Ly

nch,

Dan

iel L

ittle

...

27

? How can we enter public debate in the face of dissensus?

28

Potential sources of politicisation

1. Uncertainty

2. Consensus

3. Assertion of scientific authority

4. Is vs. Ought

29

“All of these attacks are based on a complete misunderstanding of what we were about. We took relationships that had been largely established by other people’s work on other groups of countries or states, and we looked to see if they could be demonstrated …amongst this group”

Richard Wilkinson

30

“In order to distinguish between well founded criticism and unsubstantiated claims made for political purposes, all future debate should take place in peer-reviewed publications”

Wilkinson & Pickett, ‘Reply to Critics’

31

?How can we enter public debate while avoiding non-scientific mudslinging?

32

Potential sources of politicisation

1. Uncertainty

2. Consensus

3. Assertion of scientific authority

4. Is vs. Ought

33

• From ‘is’ to ‘ought’ (cf. Hume)– Not value-free

• Spirit Level– No recommendations– Conservatives, Lib Dems, Labour

But still perceived agenda... "The evidence shows that reducing inequality is the best way of improving the quality of life, for all of us“ (Spirit Level p29)

34

? How can we enter public debate without conflating ‘is’ and ‘ought’?

35

“If everyone politicizes the science, maybe there is something about science that lends itself to being politicized?” (Sarewitz 2004:388)

• Uncertainty/dissensus• Need for certainty• ‘Facts’ matter

36

But ‘closure’ differs...

“ ‘Balanced’ discussions in the media can be misleading...[even] where the accumulation of evidence leaves little legitimate room for doubt. E.g. if 98% of climate change scientists agree on an issue and 2% disagree, then inviting 1 person from each camp..can leave people with an impression that an issue is much more controversial than it is” (p294)

FINAL THOUGHTS

Part Three

38

Critical case...–Richard’s work–Accessibility

...of wider issue–Priors over data–Little guidance

39

Do scientists have responsibilities around the way they engage in public debate?– Assertion of scientific authority?– Representation of uncertainty?– Representation of consensus?– Calls to action?

We want your help...

40

http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com

Join the debate!