Recommended by my Six Sigma Black Belt instructor. Key Chapters: 7-Fisher's criteria of a good statistic, and 24-27 ( )

This history of the development of mathematical statistics in the 20th century is delightful. But, at times, it is also frustrating, as it is completely non-mathematical. I enjoyed the book a lot, but would have enjoyed it even more if it had been written at a slightly higher technical level. A few simple equations would not have deterred the general reader. Compared with the pace of development in the mathematical sciences, the field of statistics has developed remarkably slowly, and recently. Reading this book, you get the sense that the development is still underway. ( )

This helped orient me in the world of statistical idea and personalities. A neat, breezy survey. Don't expect explanations of the ideas, however. It bills itself as a book for the uninitiated, but it's hard for me to imagine it would interest anyone who hasn't had at least a course in statistics and some interest in its applications.

This book is a chatty, nonmathematical account of the evolution of statistics as an approach to science in the 20th century. Most of the characters are English. The title refers to an incident of an improptu experiment set up by R.A. Fisher at a garden party when a lady claimed to be able to detect if tea had milk added or if the milk had been poured first. There is no record of the outcome. The book detailed numerous conflicts between Karl Pearson, R.A. Fisher, and Jerzy Neyman at the University of London. There was a politically correct nod to the inclusion of women, including Florence Nightengale. The book was well written but would have benefited from more mathematics. ( )

Reviewed Aug 2002

This is a math history book for non-math people, I found it really interesting in parts and dry/detailed in others. Salsburg writes well and explains bits of the lives behind the people involved in statistics. He tries to include women as much as possible but leaves out minorities completely. (are their many to include?) I am interested to learn that Florence Nightingale invented pie charts. She used them to explain that more men die from illness during war than in action. A great quote, "Although it has been studied for about 2,500 years, Aristotle's codification of logic is a relativity useless tool." The part about management setting unrealistic expatiations using red and white beads was great. And Stella Canfiffe who said, "It is no use as statisticians, our being sniffy about the slapdash methods of many sociologists unless we are prepared to try them into more scientifically acceptable thought." John Tukey explains tally marks for counting are useless (llll llll) it is too easy to make a mistake. He suggests using 10 as the base and making dots, lines and crosses.

14-2002 ( )