Quantity:

Express Checkout with PayPhrase

What's this? | Create PayPhrase

More Buying Choices

47 used & new from $9.97

Have one to sell? Sell yours here

Share with Friends

Share your own customer images

Search inside this book

Tell the Publisher! I�d like to read this book on Kindle Don�t have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here.

Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future (Hardcover)

~ (Author), Linda Pilkey-Jarvis (Author) "More than five hundred years ago, fishers from Portugal and the Basque region of Spain began fishing the fabled Grand Banks of Canada..." (more)
Key Phrases: useless arithmetic, adaptive staging, beach sand transport, Bruun Rule, Grand Banks, United States (more...)

3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (22 customer reviews)

List Price:	$29.95
Price:	$21.86 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save:	$8.09 (27%)
	o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Only 3 left in stock--order soon (more on the way).

Want it delivered Monday, November 23? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details

30 new from $13.89 17 used from $9.97

Formats		Amazon Price	New from	Used from
Hardcover $21.86 In Stock. Published December 7, 2006	Hardcover, December 7, 2006	$21.86	$13.89	$9.97
Paperback $22.50 In Stock. Published June 3, 2009	Paperback, June 3, 2009	$22.50	$21.31	$22.99
Audio, Download Offsite Link $18.71 or less with new Audible membership Available at Audible.com.	Audio, Download Offsite Link	$18.71 or less with new Audible membership

Frequently Bought Together

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

The Return of Martin Guerre

by Natalie Zemon Davis

4.2 out of 5 stars (21) $14.04

The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction

by David Orrell

4.6 out of 5 stars (14) $12.89

Blood Done Sign My Name: A True Story

by Timothy B. Tyson

4.7 out of 5 stars (50) $10.17

The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change

by Henrik Svensmark

4.5 out of 5 stars (37)

Ambiguous Adventure (African Writers Series, 119)

by Hamidou Kane

4.1 out of 5 stars (7) $11.04

› Explore similar items

Editorial Reviews

Review

"This book is a welcome antidote to the blind use of supposedly quantitative models." -- Carl Wunsch, American Scientist

"This is an easy and persuasive read." -- Fred Pearce, New Scientist

" Useless Arithmetic dispels many myths and is a 'must read' packing in case studies and insights on faulty thinking." -- The Midwest Book Review

"[This] readily accessible book should be read by any activist who's ever had to face off against the opposition's engineers." -- Earth Island Journal

"A concise, powerful, and readable book." -- Steven R. Carpenter, Issues in Science and Technology

"This book should be in every library... Essential." -- Choice

" Useless Arithmetic will surely excite any reader." -- David Simberloff, BioScience

Review

"Using concrete examples, the authors of Useless Arithmetic cut through the scientific jargon to show how and why many aspects of the environment are under threat because of the slavish adherence to misleading mathematical models by their technical and political advocates." -- Victor R. Baker, University of Arizona

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

Hardcover: 248 pages
Publisher: Columbia University Press (December 8, 2006)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0231132123
ISBN-13: 978-0231132121
Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 1 inches
Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)

Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (22 customer reviews)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #549,233 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

› Visit Amazon's Orrin H. Pilkey Page

Inside This Book (learn more)

First Sentence:
More than five hundred years ago, fishers from Portugal and the Basque region of Spain began fishing the fabled Grand Banks of Canada. Read the first page

Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more)
useless arithmetic, adaptive staging, beach sand transport, longshore transport volumes, shoreface shape, percolation flux, fast the rising sea, shoreline erosion rates, shoreface profile, expected universe, quantitative mathematical models, beach behavior, closure depth, shoreline retreat, global change models, nourished beach, ordering complexity, modeled predictions, pit lake, nourishment project, yucca mountain, giant cups, cod population, artificial beach, coastal engineers

Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
Bruun Rule, Grand Banks, United States, North Carolina, Lord Kelvin, Berkeley Pit, Geological Survey, Army Corps of Engineers, South Africa, South Carolina, Department of Energy, Robert Moran, New Zealand, North American, Cape Hatteras, New York Times, Washington State, Arctic Ocean, Gulf Stream, Michael Crichton, Naomi Oreskes, New Jersey, New Orleans, North Shores, Ron Brunner

New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats

Citations (learn more)

This book cites 46 books:

Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies by Charles Perrow on 5 pages
State of Fear by Michael Crichton on 4 pages
Beach Processes and Sedimentation (2nd Edition) by Paul D. Komar on page 137, Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)
The End of the Line: How Overfishing Is Changing the World and What We Eat by Charles Clover on page 14, and Back Matter
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis on page 204, and Back Matter

See all 46 books this book cites

Books on Related Topics (learn more)

Environmental Applications of Geochemical Modeling by Chen Zhu

Discusses:

What Do Customers Ultimately Buy After Viewing This Item?

	84% buy the item featured on this page: Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future 3.0 out of 5 stars (22) $21.86
	6% buy The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction 4.6 out of 5 stars (14) $12.89
	6% buy Nuclear Waste Stalemate: Political and Scientific Controversies 4.0 out of 5 stars (1) $19.50
	2% buy Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet 4.6 out of 5 stars (10) $15.33

Explore similar items

Tags Customers Associate with This Product

(What's this?)

Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.

modeling(11)

global warming(6)

science(5)

skepticism(3)

environmentalis m(2)

repository performance assessment(2)

cigarettes(1)

enlightening(1)

mathematical modeling(1)

mining(1)

Agree with these tags?

See all 11 tags...

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

Customer Reviews

22 Reviews

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(8)

Average Customer Review

3.0 out of 5 stars (22 customer reviews)

Share your thoughts with other customers:

Create your own review

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

71 of 84 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Tyranny of numbers, March 18, 2007

By	Harry Eagar (Maui) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

At first glance, it is odd to single out environmental scientists for being unable to predict the future. However, like stock pickers, some preachers and electoral pollsters, environmental scientists do make a business of predicting the future.

Not one of these groups has had any success, but it is arguable that the environmental scientists have done the most damage to other people by being wrong.

Orrin Pilkey, a well-known if not always well-liked specialist on coastal processes at Duke, began a seminar to examine why the predictions of coastal engineers seemed so often to lead to projects that didn't work. (I have known the North Carolina beaches where Pilkey does much of his work for more than 50 years. The Outer Bankers hate what Pilkey says about their beaches, but he's right.)

The investigation led to a wider examination of numerical models of all sorts of natural processes. Among those examined -- all failures -- were managing the Grand Banks fishery, predicting the lifetime of nourished beaches, predicting toxicity of lakes in abandoned pit mines and predicting how fast sea level will rise. Predictably, more attention is paid to coastal processes than anything else, but other topics get fair treatment, even one as far from the coast as the Yucca Mountain atomic waste dump.

What the Pilkeys found was no surprise to me as a newspaper reporter, and will be even less a surprise to scientists. People forget, but reporters keep clipping files. Mine contain many reminders about predictions made but unfulfilled. The Pilkeys conclude that it is impossible to write quantitative numerical models of any complex process on the surface of the earth. This is unlike numerical models of tractable systems, like the orbits of comets or the fracture strength of a steel-frame building.

For most people, the most familiar such models are the global circulation models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to predict catastrophic global warming. The Pilkeys barely mention GCMs in passing, and this is probably wise. If their goal is to get non-technical people (or even technical people with open minds about modeling) to rethink the enthusiasm for them, then injecting global warming into the mix would no doubt distract from their greater goal.

However, the deduction is clear and inescapable -- forget the GCMs. They offer no guide to anything.

The reasons all these models fail are many. One the Pilkeys emphasize more than any other is the "ordering problem." Even if you knew all the parameters that count (seldom or never the case), and even if you knew how they interact with each other), you can never, ever know in which order the variable ones will present themselves. If current changes affect beaches and hurricanes affect beaches, and both are variable over time, you cannot know in advance whether the storm will come first, or something will alter the current first.

This is not an original thought. Although he did not call it an ordering problem, the immunologist and philosopher of science Peter Medawar identified it as the reason that it will always be impossible to conduct meaningful experiments to disentangle the effects of nature and nurture on human behavior. (See his essay, "Further Comments on Psychoanalysis" in "The Strange Case of the Spotted Mice" and my review of that book.)

Other critics, such as Vaclav Smil and Naomi Oreskes, have also demolished the concept of numerical modeling of complex systems, and the Pilkeys give them credit for their work. Even outside the natural sciences, the empirical failure of attempts to predict (or even to quantify) complex systems have been demonstrated conclusively, for instance by lawyer Michael Wheeler in "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: the Manipulation of Public Opinion in America." That book was published more than 30 years ago; there really can be no excuse at this late date for people to question the Pilkeys' conclusion.

People do. Orrin Pilkey has been called a neo-Luddite by defenders of quantitative modeling.

The beaches, however, are not there, just as he said they would not be.

As an alternative, the Pilkeys advocate qualitative modeling. It gives, at best, trends, it outlines areas that might require remediation as things develop. Its asset is flexibility. That's something you never get with a seawall. Those are inflexible.

Another approach, about which the Pilkeys take no firm stand, is the Dutch method of dealing with retreating beaches: dump and run. In other words, build up the beach without expectations of how soon it will have to be done again. The Dutch, with their heritage of centuries of battling the sea, probably think in terms of processes rather than "solutions."

This short but powerful volume is explicitly aimed at non-technical readers. Although quantitative models are mathematical, it is not necessary to know math to understand how they work, and the Pilkeys relegate what little math is in the book to an appendix. Like Orrin Pilkey's lectures to public audiences on coastal erosion, he can make complex processes understandable, if not predictable.

I only wish the Pilkeys had included a chapter on wellhead protection zones, which are going to become an increasingly hot topic in many areas. These attempt to predict how far you have to keep pollutant sources away from the places you find your drinking water. The approach used so far has been numerical modeling. "Useless Arithmetic" does not encourage confidence in the protection policies being adopted.

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars It's About Models, July 25, 2007

By	Curtis Abbott (Silicon Valley CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

The first author is a retired professor of geology and a particular expert on beaches. He's a scientist's scientist, and clearly an opinionated and occasionally irascible guy. This book is a bit of a tirade in places but it's full of real examples, good data, and thought provoking stories. I enjoyed it a lot. The main theme is that the natural world is too complicated a place for quantitative models to work well, and that when politics is involved they can lead to really bad decisions. The majority of examples are drawn from cases where earth sciences meet human activities - sea level rise, beach erosion and "nourishment", hydrology of abandoned pit mines, storage of nuclear waste. Closely related are discussions of fishery management and invasive species. For the most part the book is well researched. The writing is clear - the book is an easy read and never boring.
Quantitative models are decried throughout the book, and the suggestion is made that what is reasonable is "qualitative" modelling. The distinction isn't really developed until the last chapter where some good examples are to be found. Still, the distinction isn't as crisp as I'd like - perhaps it is a qualitative difference and not a quantitative one! Another positive suggestion is that incrementalism is a generally better approach to interacting with the complexities of nature than the brittle approaches that arise from an overly numerate engineering mentality. In other words, instead of using quantitative models to plan enormous, long-term projects, try something on a small scale, observe the results, and go from there.
I came away with considerably more knowledge of the topics discussed. I was already a convert to the basic themes - that we tend to overestimate what we know, to trust numbers more than we should, that political processes often interact with science in ways that are inimical to both good decisions and greater knowledge. Several times I thought of Eisenhower's dictum that plans are generally useless but planning is essential. Perhaps that captures best the distinction Pilkey is trying to make about qualitative models.
Unlike some of the other reviewers, I was not offended by the political implications of anything Pilkey asserts. I didn't see it as either pro or anti global warming in any political sense. No hidden agendas here, it's really about modelling. Recommended.

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

62 of 80 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, May 12, 2007

By	D. Trimmer (Livermore, CA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I wanted to give this book three ratings: Five stars for the basic tenants, three stars for supporting their tenants and one star for violating every valid point they make when the discussion turns to man made global warming. The book is relatively short, but should probably be condensed to a chapter. Bottom line: I didn't find much in the book that wasn't already in one of the reviews.

The Good: The authors advance the idea that mathematical (computer) modeling of complex systems is often misused. A combination of not understanding all of the important physical processes, making inappropriate assumptions about initial conditions and improper handling of chaotic events make the predictions inaccurate. The process is further corrupted by politics, money, bias and hubris. This is all too true.

The subject material is presented virtually without mathematics and can be understood by just about anyone. It will also arm the lay person to ask questions that are likely to be embarrassing to most models. Those questions range from "what were the assumptions?" to "has the model successfully predicted events or does it need to be constantly fudged to match the real world?". Multiple examples are given of assumptions and processes that violated basic common sense.

I was particularly interested in the chapter on modeling the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. I made some of the permeability measurements of basalt and granite that were used in the models. I shared office and lab space with people that generated a lot of the measurements on salt that went into the modeling effort. I can't offer independent confirmation of every statement the author's made. However, their comments about the models making the ludicrous assumption that cracks and fissures weren't important was spot on. My colleagues and I also published work that attempted to measure the characteristics of cracks and fissures and evaluated fluid flow through these cracks and fissures. The modelers made a conscious choice to ignore the latter data.

The bad: The authors are apparently unable to apply their lessons outside of their own field of expertise. After successfully demolishing a number of models that had been accepted without question, they turned to global warming. They spent the chapter praising the climate modelers for admitting that the models didn't accurately predict sea levels.

However, they completely accepted the idea that man made carbon dioxide was an important contribution to global warming. In doing so, they violated every statement they made about blindly accepting models:

1) They were apparently unaware the greenhouse effect is a theory and that the primary proof of the theory is an unverified mathematical model.

2) They make the case that we should believe this model because every credible scientist endorses it. They had previously made the point that other widely accepted models have been wrong. Further, this statement is a lie unless the test for credibility is agreement with the model.

3) The climate models predict that the greenhouse effect will warm the lower atmosphere (energy that would otherwise be radiated to space is captured by the lower atmosphere) and then be transferred to the Earth. Measurements have not shown the predicted temperature increases in the lower atmosphere. Further, the models predict that the effect would be stronger at the poles than at the equator. Measurements have shown the temperate zones getting warmer and the poles getting colder. This has not caused the authors or the proponents of man made global warming to reconsider the fundamental assumption.

4) Political bias has resulted in the IPCC report being modified to remove statements about the limitations of the model that the scientific community had included. The authors do point out that global warming research is a $4B business that will seek to perpetuate itself and then praise the global warming work while attributing an economic bias to those that question it.

5) The models have not successfully predicted anything. Further, the modelers have not been able to tweak the models to generate some important physical phenomenon such as the South Pacific heat vent (NASA says that the vent is triggered by a small rise in the ocean temperature and radiates about the same amount of heat as is purportedly generated by man made greenhouse gasses).

For a lucid and comprehensive discussion of the opposing views, I recommend "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" by Singer and Avery.

The ugly. Not being content to ignore their own advice re. questioning the climate models, they stoop to characterizing those who do question the model with words such as "profoundly unenlightened", "rabid", "clumsy and disingenuous", "not objective", "high and mighty", "motivated entirely by economic consideration", "lack of scientific integrity". This displays a dismaying lack of intelluctual integrity on the part of the authors.

Comment Comments (8) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 22 customer reviews...

Most Recent Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars Number bashing of number crunchers
The key points regarding this book have been well summarized by previous reviewers. The star ratings are somewhat deceptive. Read more

Published 1 month ago by Bookworm

1.0 out of 5 stars useless book
The authors of this book do not provide useful criticisms of environmental modeling and only highlight their own ignorance. Read more

Published 7 months ago by C. Merow

1.0 out of 5 stars They should've read more before writing this...
I am a modeler. I was happy to hear one of mentors, Charlie Hall, mentioned in another review here. Read more

Published 8 months ago by Seth J. Myers

3.0 out of 5 stars Both, Good and Bad. But, widely applicable!
"Usless Arithmetic" was, both, good and bad. The authors seem to know the subjects upon which they are writing. Read more

Published 10 months ago by Norman Strojny

5.0 out of 5 stars Comprehensive review of mathematical models
The Pilkey's have given a thoughtful and thorough review of how mathematical models can be used improperly. Read more

Published 11 months ago by J. Cunning

5.0 out of 5 stars The truth at last
I share an office with a fisheries modeller who I tease constantly about fudge factors etc. My experience with models has been exactly what is so well put together in this book... Read more

Published 12 months ago by Wendy Barron

5.0 out of 5 stars Inspired by the predictable negative reviews
After reading all the hysterical anti-environmental reviews I went ahead and bought the audio book. For a study in anti-environmental propaganda read Sharon Beder's "Global Spin:... Read more

Published 13 months ago by Richard W. Heger

2.0 out of 5 stars Dull and Dull-edged
A repetitive and droning treatment on the topic of the over-reliance of the scientific community on computational models. Read more

Published 20 months ago by A. Neal

3.0 out of 5 stars Good on misuse of quantitative models
This book claims that environmental scientists can't predict
the future, and it offers to tell us why they can't. Read more

Published 20 months ago by Charles Bradley

1.0 out of 5 stars "Nature is written in the language of mathematics" (Galileo)
I picked this book up because the premise is very interesting, and one of the book jacket reviewers--an academic who is known in the modelling world--called it "a must-read for... Read more

Published on August 11, 2007 by D. Barry

› See all 22 customer reviews...

.jsOffDisplayBlock { display: block; } .jsOffDisplayInline { display: inline; } .jsOffVisibility { visibility: visible; } .jsOnDisplayBlock { display: none; } .jsOnDisplayNoneBlock { display: block; } .jsOnDisplayNoneInline { display: inline; } .jsOnDisplayInline { display: none; } .jsOnVisibility { visibility: hidden; } .jqOnDisplayBlock { display: none; } .jqOnDisplayInline { display: none; } .jqOnVisibility { visibility: hidden; } .jqOnDisplayNoneBlock { display: block; } .jqOnDisplayNoneInline { display: inline; }

Customer Discussions

This product's forum

Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
A Few Comments	1	April 2009

› See all discussions...

Start a new discussion

Topic:

First post:

Receive e-mail when new posts are made

Prompts for sign-in

Guidelines

Active discussions in related forums

Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
science intelligent design: hypothesis+mechanism+experi... = science	1511	6 minutes ago
politics Angry Congress lashes out at Obama	26	31 minutes ago
politics Do you believe 9-11-01 disaster was an "Inside Job" ?	7879	1 hour ago
science Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic	4202	1 hour ago
politics The Republicans are LYING through their teeth!	12	1 hour ago
global warming Why is the issue of global warming so politically divisive?	201	1 hour ago
politics "Wealth is something that happens to you as a result of circumstances over which you have absolutely no control."	19	1 hour ago
global warming The Greatest Fraud in Human History	15	7 days ago