The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life
Abstract
This investigation of the overwhelming appeal of quantification in the modern world discusses the development of cultural meanings of objectivity over two centuries. How are we to account for the current prestige and power of quantitative methods? The usual answer is that quantification is seen as desirable in social and economic investigation as a result of its successes in the study of nature. Theodore Porter is not content with this. Why should the kind of success achieved in the study of stars, molecules, or cells be an attractive model for research on human societies? he asks. And, indeed, how should we understand the pervasiveness of quantification in the sciences of nature? In his view, we should look in the reverse direction: comprehending the attractions of quantification in business, government, and social research will teach us something new about its role in psychology, physics, and medicine. Drawing on a wide range of examples from the laboratory and from the worlds of accounting, insurance, cost-benefit analysis, and civil engineering, Porter shows that it is exactly wrong to interpret the drive for quantitative rigor as inherent somehow in the activity of science except where political and social pressures force compromise. Instead, quantification grows from attempts to develop a strategy of impersonality in response to pressures from outside. Objectivity derives its impetus from cultural contexts, quantification becoming most important where elites are weak, where private negotiation is suspect, and where trust is in short supply.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century
Rose, N. (2007) · doi:10.1515/9781400827503 · Cited by 3,294
The Handbook of Economic Sociology
Fukuyama, F., Smelser, N. J., & Swedberg, R. (1994) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20046937 · Cited by 2,096
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · Cited by 1,336
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008) · European Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1017/s0003975609000150 · Cited by 1,265
The Rapid Adoption of Data-Driven Decision-Making
Brynjolfsson, E., & McElheran, K. (2016) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.p20161016 · Cited by 843
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1995-11-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 33-1499-33-1499
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1480551106
- Cited by
- 2,619
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.33-1499
- The paper
- Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. (1995). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-1499
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.