Pearson's Statistics in the Netherlands and the Astronomer Kapteyn

Abstract

In 1903 the well-known Dutch astronomer Kapteyn published a paper in which he discussed statistical methods which he thought would be relevant for biologists. His motivation was the 1895 paper of Pearson on skew frequency curves. Kapteyn had concluded that the theory was open to grave objections and was not adapted to nonmathematical readers. He was then led to an independent investigation of the subject. This publication would lead to a heated dialogue between Kapteyn and Pearson, in which they accused each other of inappropriate starting points, of plagiarism and of making serious mathematical mistakes. This article evaluates these claims. In addition, Kapteyn's struggle to make his work accessible to biologists is discussed. Copyright (c) 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation (c) 2009 International Statistical Institute.

Why Distinguish Between Statistics and Mathematical Statistics–The Case of Swedish Academia

“…Kapteyn was the serious researcher, Charlier the radical man of action. Stamhuis and Seneta () describe Kapteyn's struggle to explain, and criticise, i.a. Pearson's skewed frequency curves to a biological audience.…”

Discussion

“…In a long, rambling and ill‐tempered rejoinder to criticisms of his family of distributions, Pearson () responded aggressively to Kapteyn (), and an acrimonious exchange between the two pursued (Kapteyn, ; Pearson, ); Pearson using his privileged position as Editor of Biometrika to promote his family of distributions and sink as best he could the transformation approach of Edgeworth and Kapteyn. The heated exchanges between Kapteyn and Pearson are described vividly in Stamhuis & Seneta ().…”