kniga 7 - Probability and Statistics 1 - Sheynin, Oscar

--- (1999, in Russian), Slutsky: commemorating the 50 th anniversary of his death. IMI, vol.38, pp. 128 – 137. Translated with additional material in author’s Russian papers on theHistory of probability and Statistics. Berlin, 2004, pp. 222 – 240.Smirnov, N.V. (1948), Slutsky. Izvestia AN, ser. Math., vol. 12, pp. 417 – 420. (R)8. Romanovsky. V.I. His reviews of R.A. Fisher;official attitude towards him; his obituaryVsevolod Ivanovich Romanovsky (1879 – 1954) was an outstanding mathematician andstatistician. He also originated statistical studies in Tashkent and might certainly be alsoremembered as an educationalist. Bogoliubov & Matvievskaia (1997) described his life andwork but have not dwelt sufficiently on his ties with Western scientists (or on the ensuingcriticism doubtless arranged from above), and this is what I am dealing with by translatinghis reviews of Fisher’s books, pertinent materials of a Soviet statistical conference of 1948 1(fragments of one report and the resolution) and a publisher’s preface to the Russiantranslation of Fisher’s Statistical Methods… My manuscript “Romanovsky’s correspondencewith Pearson and Fisher” intended for the forthcoming volume commemorating A.P.Youshkevich, will make public eight of his letters to Pearson (1924 – 1925) and 23 lettersexchanged in 1929 – 1938 between him and Fisher 2 .Some of Romanovsky’s writings (1924; 1934) not translated below also bear on mysubject. In the first of them, he (pt. 1, p. 12) called Pearson “our celebrated contemporary”,and, in the second part, discussed the latter’s work. Lenin had severely criticized Pearson’sideology (Sheynin 1998, p. 530), and, beginning with ca. 1926, Soviet statisticians had beenrejecting Pearson’s work out of hand 3 . In the second writing, Romanovsky discussed thework of Fisher. He argued that it should be developed and propagandized (p. 83), thatFisher’s Statistical Methods …was almost exclusively “prescriptive”, which “distressed”those readers, who wished to study the described issues deeper, but that that book ought to betranslated into Russian (p. 84). He also noted that Fisher’s methods were unknown to Russianstatisticians and put forward recommendations concerning the teaching of statistics. Inparticular, Romanovsky (p. 86) advised the introduction of optional studies of statisticalapplications to genetics; cf. the Resolution of the Soviet conference below!Notes1. The criticism levelled there against Romanovsky was comparatively mild, no doubtbecause the participants simply obeyed ideological orders. Nevertheless, it led to a furtherattack against him, see my introductory remarks to the translation of Sarymsakov (1955)below. A highly ranked geodesist noted mistakes in Romanovsky’s treatise on the theory oferrors and supported his remarks by stupid ideological accusations. He even alleged thatRomanovsky’s expression “probability … is described by the law …” was unacceptablebecause Marx had declared that the world needed change rather than description.2. In one of his letters to Fisher written in Paris in 1929, Romanovsky called the Sovietpolitical police “the most dreadful and mighty organization”.3. Even Fisher became suspect. Here is an editorial note to Romanovsky’s paper (1927, p.224): “The editorial staff does not share either the main suppositions of Fisher, who belongsto the Anglo – American empiricists’ school, or Romanovsky’s attitude to Fisher’sconstructions …”8a.V.I. Romanovsky.Review of R.A. Fisher “Statistical Methods for Research Workers“. London, 1934Sozialistich. Rekonstruksia i Nauka, No. 9, 1935, pp. 123 – 127