Numbers in History, statistics, testicles

Numbers have had an important part in our understanding of the past, both in war and peace. Voltaire and Napoleon, among others I am sure, have had the aphorism ‘God is on the side of the big battalions’ attributed to them and numbers notoriously played a big part in Western Front trench attritional warfare 1914-18. The centenary for the commencement of the Great War will be well marked next year. With the development of electronic technology and computers, counting and recording numbers has become easier. Interesting, if not significant, correlations are sought, particularly in the area of health. It is numbers [of deaths] that have led to the ‘special measures’ for 14 hospital trusts in the UK. A report, publicised by the BBC [10 Sept 2013], has stated there is a link ‘between the size of a father’s testicles and how active he is in bringing up his children …’. Published correlations between life-style patterns and health are numerous.

From the point of view of the study of the past, the trouble with numbers, that is statistics, is that they can divert from at least part, if not all, the central focus of History study. The focus is Man in society in the past. Individuals ought to be the irreducible foundation of History. The sense of this comment is illustrated by the example of statistics on unemployment. When it is reported that unemployment is lowered to, say, 3.7 per cent it should be remembered that each one of the men and women who make up that 3.7 percent is 100 per cent unemployed and their life is hugely damaged by that.

Update 5 June 2014. [Original post 20 Sept. 2013.]

It is not only the Sempringham blog that draws attention to obsession with numbers. Is there a sense of Wallace-Darwin type synchronicity here? The BBC magazine published an article on 26 May 2014 by James Fletcher that highlights ‘spurious correlations’ and he mentions the ‘spurious correlation’ between margarine consumption and divorce. A Harvard student has created a website titled ‘Spurious Correlations’ that invites vivid examples. As Michael Oakeshott, On History, Basil Blackwell, 1983, persuasively elucidates, only evidence of connection between one circumstance and another is justification for a claim of relation between the two: coincidence is not enough. That means margarine is freed from all culpability!

Contributor: Geoff Williams. Sempringham [ehistory.org.uk] eLearning Office.