ASKED the age of a T. rex skeleton, the museum guide replies that it is 65,000,038 years old. How did he arrive at such a precise number? The guide explains that on his first day at the museum, a scientist told him it was 65 million years old. 鈥淭hat was 38 years ago,鈥� he says.
This is an example of what Charles Seife calls 鈥減roofiness鈥� 鈥� citing numbers with spurious accuracy. While harmless here, proofiness can be downright dangerous, especially when wielded by politicians, generals, advertisers and expert witnesses.
Seife aims to teach readers how to spot such 鈥淧otemkin numbers鈥�, and he does a wonderful job of it, with witty and engaging prose and hardly a formula in sight. I only wish Seife had steered clear of neologisms. Proofiness? Fine. Stephen Colbert (the comedian and faux US news anchor who brought us 鈥渢ruthiness鈥�) would be proud. But does the world really need 鈥渃ausuistry鈥� (mistaking correlation for causation) and 鈥渞andumbness鈥� (seeing patterns in random figures)?
Advertisement
Proofiness: The dark arts of mathematical deception
Viking