The Taming of Chance

Summary

Hacking provides an account of an important period in the history of probability, showing special concern with the philosophy of indeterminacy. He shows that the modern argument for preferring facts to testimony in science assumes probabilistic thinking.

Reception

The Taming of Chance has been described as ground-breaking. D. V. Lindley reviewed the book in Nature. M. Schabas reviewed the book in Science. Stephen P. Turner reviewed the book positively in the American Journal of Sociology, writing that it was useful for both sociologists of science and historians of social science, and that while Hacking's arguments were open to objections, Hacking was "too sophisticated" to be caught by them. Theodore M. Porter reviewed the book in American Scientist.

Bruce Kurlick gave The Taming of Chance a mixed review in American Historical Review, noting that it was a sequel to Hacking's earlier The Emergence of Probability. Kurlick praised Hacking for the "richness of his ideas" and credited him with mastering complicated literature in several languages and "meticulous scholarship" superior to that of Michel Foucault, to whom Hacking was indebted. However, he considered the book a "strain to understand" and criticized Hacking for giving insufficient emphasis to the role of the hospital in "acclimating the public to chance and probability", and for his "penchant for irrelevant anecdotes" and poor judgment about how to write about the past. Timothy L. Alborn reviewed The Taming of Chance positively in Isis, writing that Hacking had a "vibrant writing style" and presented a "wealth of material". However, he also wrote that Hacking's book left many questions unanswered.