Richter's Review of "Elements of Business Statistics"Author(s): Robert RiegelSource: Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 20, No. 152 (Dec., 1925), pp. 556-557Published by: American Statistical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2277172 .

Accessed: 11/06/2014 10:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Statistical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journalof the American Statistical Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.195 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:41:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

556 A merican Statistical Association [90

RICHTER'S REVIEW OF "ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS STATISTICS"

To the Editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association: Sir:

I am moved to write you with reference to several points raised by Mr. F. E. Richter in his review of my book entitled Elements of Business Statistics, in the June issue of this JOURNAL.

In the first paragraph of his review Mr. Richter states that "The fact that illustrations are almost entirely from the field of business does not entitle him (the author) to call the book" by that name. This title is, according to the reviewer, "misleading" because "there is mighty little philosophy (of statistics in business) in the book." This is one of the most confusing statements I have ever seen with reference to the use of the term "business statistics." Inasmuch as the term vital statistics is used for statistical methods applied to vital facts and social statistics for methods applied to social facts, I fail to see what there is "misleading" about calling methods applied to business facts, "business statis- tics," except that unfortunately the word statistics has been used to indicate a science or method as well as a body of facts (for which I am not responsible). It might be interesting to Mr. Richter to read the comment of an actuary, an experienced insurance statistician and professor of statistics in one of our large universities in a published review of this book: "It is, as its name implies, an elementary text covering the application of statistical methods to business and economic problems. " I do not give the citation because I do not care to lean upon the support of his name and reputation, but he seems to have grasped with comparative ease the idea which eludes Mr. Richter. I will pass over the latter's naive conception of philosophy as represented by Emerson, Santayana and James H. Robinson.

Another unfortunate feature of Mr. Richter's review is that he has, in spirit, misrepresented one of my statements on part of the work of the Harvard statis- ticians. He solicits support by stating that the " Harvard University Committee on Economic Research must have been interested in reading the description of what Mr. Riegel calls 'the so-called "Harvard barometer."' " The word "Barometer" in this statement the reviewer very cleverly decapitalizes, to aid in the impression that I was adversely reflecting upon the value of this contribution. In fact I used the word "so-called" here merely because the popular title "Har- vard Barometer" is not the official title of this business index. Mr. Richter must have been aware of my real object because just seven lines further on I state that ". . . the index is very valuable as an accurate picture of what has happened and is happening." I object very much to the reviewer building a real animadversion upon one purely assumed for his own purposes.

In the same paragraph the reviewer states that "Professor Persons would hardly relate any production curve to normal which was not corrected for seasonal movement." This comment refers to a chart, on which the seasonal movement is plainly shown, and furthermore the next sentence below the chart is "The second step is to make allowance for seasonal fluctuations." Is this deliberate misrepresentation or not?

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.195 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:41:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

91] Notes 557

There is one point in this review which is well taken and which I freely ac- knowledge indicates a bad blunder in statistical theory, that with reference to the logarithmic chart, and it shall be corrected at once.

Other points to which Mr. Richter refers are: (1) a mistake in the middle initial of a person's name; (2) a mistake in wording in discussing figures (the figures being approximately correct); (3) too great brevity in an illustration, which might cause the illustration to mislead; (4) the error of printing in a table of squares 100 00 000, instead of 100 00 00, as the square of 1,000; and finally (5) that the author has included in a list of requisites for graphic presentation a pencil and has not mentioned an eraser! These are hardly worth the space in the JOURNAL he has devoted to them.

The first printing of this book contains numerous typographical errors and probably some others. This hardly justifies a reviewer in writing such a con- stricted and inadequate "review" as Mr. Richter has produced, which (1) Ut- terly fails to appraise the manner of presentation; (2) Omits any evaluation of the clarity of exposition; (3) Absolutely omits any criticism of the scope of the contents; (4) Mentions nothing as to suitability for the purpose of readableness. These are important characteristics in an elementary text and if Mr. Richter had considered them his "review" might have been useful as well as humorous. I might quote some favorable reviews by eminent statisticians but this would be taking advantage of their generosity to make up for Mr. Richter's deficit.

Finally, one may judge of the spirit in which this review was written when informed that the author in his preface stated that "little originality can be claimed for the contents except in the method of presentation. The works of others have been used unhesitatingly. . . ." The reviewer disdained the author's own words and paraphrased this to read "the book . . . may be ex- cused for being merely a warming over of the creative work of others." This reminds one of the patient who showed a tender spot to a physician, who promptly pinched it to demonstrate to the patient the sensitiveness of exposed nerves.

Sincerely yours, ROBERT RIEGEL

A REJOINDER

In answering Professor Riegel's criticism of my review, I shall, like him, pro- ceed from the specific to the general.

It so happens that shortly after my review of Mr. Riegel's book was written, Professor F. C. Mills published his book, Statistical Methods Applied to Economics and Business. That is my idea of a perfect title. In the light of it, I need hardly enlarge further on the reasons for my criticism of the title of Mr. Riegel's book. My allusion to Emerson, Santayana, and Robinson, by the way, was made be- cause I had the naive notion that they were masters of the English language, not because of any naive conceptions in regard to their philosophy. Readers of my review will recall that I was suggesting that in their works might be found excel- lent illustrations for a grammar.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.195 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:41:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions