1 Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability ... - Sheynin, Oscar

Introduction by CompilerI am presenting translations of some contributions special in thatthey were devoted to the practical aspect of applied statistics. In anycase, an acquaintance with them compels the reader to think aboutunexpected circumstances. I never met Yuri Ivanovich Alimov, butsome decades ago I had attended a short course of lectures at MoscowUniversity delivered by Valery Nikolaevich Tutubalin. I regret that hehad no desire to have a look at his previous work. He allowed me toinclude here (see below in translation) his letter to me explaining hisreluctance.Tutubalin himself [v, beginning of] indicated what prompted him tocompile his booklets [i – iii] and, as he reasonably supposed, alsoserved as a catalyst for Alimov [iv]: the amount of falsehoods arrivedat by applying the theory of probability is too great to be tolerated. Hecited Grekova (1976) who had quoted scientific lore which stated thatpure mathematics achieves the probable by proper methods andapplied mathematics achieves the necessary by possible means. Theproblem therefore reduces to verifying those possible means, toascertaining the conditions for those means to remain possible.Tutubalin intended his booklets for a rather broad circle of readerseven though he was discussing most serious subjects [ii]. But then, inthe first place in [iii], his text included hardly comprehensiblestatements and an unusual pronouncement on Bernoulli’s law of largenumbers which should be read together with Alimov’s works.Two of Tutubalin’s statements in the same booklet (see my Notes17 and 18) were no doubt watered down to pass censorship; nowadays,they should have been drastically altered.Two points ought to be indicated. First, concerning the applicationof probability to administration of justice see my Note 4 to booklet [i].Second, Tutubalin [i] overestimated Laplace’s influence with respectboth to theory and general thinking. I think that Fourier (1829, pp. 375– 376) correctly described Laplace as a theoretician:We cannot affirm that it was his destiny to create a science entirelynew [...]; to give to mathematical doctrines principles original and ofimmense extent [...]; or, like Newton, [...] to extend to all the universethe terrestrial dynamics of Galileo; but Laplace was born to perfecteverything, to exhaust everything and to drive back every limit in orderto solve what might have appeared incapable of solution.Neither Boltzmann (who cited many scholars and philosophers), norPoincaré (who regrettably knew only Bertrand) referred to Laplaceeven once, and Maxwell only mentioned him twice in a very generalway.As to general thinking, Quetelet regrettably overshadowedLaplace’s Essai by his spectacular but poorly justified announcementsand proposals later rejected by German statisticians along with thetheory of probability.Alimov’s booklet [iv] is written in bad general style. Witness hisoriginal first sentence (altered in translation): ... mathematicians and3