Letters fromW.S. Gosset to R.A. Fisher are used to ficient.'" describe Gosset's firstcontactsand growingfriendship In the summerof 1912Gosset was 36; Fisher,gradu- withFisher, theircollaborationover the tabulationof ating from Cambridge University,was 22. Fisher's Student's t, and the wider applications of Gosset's firstpaper, in whichthemethodofmaximumlikelihood work that were made possible by Fisher's extension was introduced,had appeared in April. Deriving the and generalizationofthedistribution theoryintheearly maximumlikelihoodestimateforthevarianceofa nor- 1920's. These lettersrevealGosset's practicalapproach mal sample, Fisher had come up withthe divisorn in- to the statisticalproblemsof his brewerywork that stead of the n - 1 of Student's formula.His college ''naturallyrequired" the solutionsforwhichthe name tutortoldhimto writeto Gosset about thediscrepancy, of Student is famous; and they exhibithis appealing which he did. Several letterspassed between them, character,modest yet self-reliant, in relationshipnot in the course of which Fisher conceived the notionof only to Karl Pearson and R.A. Fisher but to statistical representinggeometricallythe configurationof the assistants stillin training. sample in n-dimensionalspace. This representation immediatelygave him the concept of degrees of free- KEY WORDS: Geometric representation;Sampling dom and the correct divisor n - 1 for the variance distributions;t distribution;Randomization;Analysis formula,and moreoveryieldedthemathematicalproof of variance; Degrees of freedom. of Student'sdistribution,whichFisher sentto Gosset. Gosset (Pearson 1968) immediatelysent the proof to Pearson, suggestingpublication. "I couldn't under- standhis stuff,"Gosset wrote."I don't feelat home in 1. INTRODUCTION morethanthreedimensionseven ifI could understand it otherwise." He concluded, however, "It's so nice and mathematicalthatit mightappeal to some people" W.S. Gosset, betterknown under the pseudonym (p. 446). Student,was an extraordinarily appealing individual, The proof was not published, the correspondence generousto a fault,humble,enthusiasticin thepursuit ceased; but a seed had been sown that would grow. of his varied interests,and helpful.He had a flairfor As Fisher wrote in Statistical Methodsfor Research graspingtheheartof a problemthatmade his contribu- Workers(1925, p. 23), "The study of the exact dis- tionsto statisticsimportantout ofall proportionto their tributionsof statisticscommences in 1908 with 'Stu- number.It is a tributeto his personal qualities thathe dent's' paper The Probable Errorof a Mean. Once the was a friendofbothKarl Pearson and R.A. Fisherfrom truenatureof the problemwas indicated,a largenum- the timehe made theiracquaintance in the earlyyears ber of samplingproblemswere withinreach of mathe- of the centuryuntilhis death in 1937. It is a pleasure matical solution." Having grasped the true nature of to reviewthegrowthofhisfriendship and collaboration the problem fromStudent's work, and the means of withFisher in the early 1920s; and, because the story mathematicalsolutionthroughthe geometricalrepre- comes alive in thelettersfromGosset thatFishersaved sentation,Fisher proceeded nextto solve the problem and latersummarized(Gosset 1970)-about 80 ofthem of Student's second paper by deriving the general in the period of eight years here considered-to sampling distributionof the correlation coefficient. allow Gosset's own words to reveal his personality When Gosset received the publishedpaper in 1915,he and his approach to his statisticalresearch and col- wrote, " When I firstsaw it, I nearly wrote to thank leagues. (For a more technicaltreatmentof the same you forthe kindway in whichyou referredto my un- period, see ChurchillEisenhart's (1979) article, "On scientificefforts";he suggestedhow he would tackle the Transitionfrom'Student's' z to 'Student's' t.") the remainingproblemof estimatingthe errorof cor- From 1899on, Gosset was employedas a brewerat relationestimates, adding, however, "But of course Guinness's Brewery, and his statistical researches anythingalmost would do if it gave an integrableex- sprangfromthe needs of thiswork. In particular,dur- pression" (Gosset 1970; no. 1). This was the nub. In ing a year he spent in Karl Pearson's departmentat principle,the problemcould be solved by calculating UniversityCollege, London, in 1907,Gosset prepared the curves, and hence their integrals,for each case two papers (Student1908a,b),"The ProbableErrorofa separately,and thiswas infactundertakenin Pearson's department(Soper et al. 1917). Fisher showed, how- * JoanFisherBox, 3437 EdgehillPkwy.,Madison, WI 53705,is the ever, thata verysimpleand close approximationcould authorof R.A. Fisher, The Life of a Sctientist(1978) and of articles be obtained by a transformation, which renderedthe on relatedtopics. massive tabulationof ordinatesalmost superfluous.
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2. FELLOW PRACTITIONERS to get a statisticiansoon, when he gets the money I think, and it mightbe worthwhile to keep yourears open to news fromHarpenden. (Gosset 1970, no. 3) Three years later, in December 1918, Fisher wrote again to discuss applicationof Gosset's (Student 1914) Naturally,Gosset was the firstto hear eight months difference correlationmethodto birthrate and marriage laterthatSir JohnRussell had appointedFisher statis- data. Gosset answered at great length,ending, tician at RothamstedExperimentalStation, and was Well, I expect you've about had enoughofthis.I am send- glad, for,as he said, "There should be lots of interest- ing it via UniversityCollege as I cannot lay hands on our ing workto be done there,and theymighteasily have formercorrespondenceand theonlyclue to yourwhereabouts got someone there who would have been worse than is the postmarkwhich seems to be Reading. If I oughtto ad- useless" (Gosset 1970,no. 4). He was happyto answer dress you as Major or Professorpray forgiveme, here one Fisher's requestforadvice bothabout whatcomputing failsto keep abreast of events. (Gosset 1970, no. 2) machine to buy and about home brewing- "less Gosset mightnothave knownhow to address Fisher,or troubleto buy Guinness," he added, "and let us do it where,buthe could recognizethatherewas a manwith foryou" (Gossett 1970, no. 4), which Fisher did. a similarscientificoutlook and similarpracticalgoals, Then, forthe last time,the correspondenceflagged thougha mathematician.In 1915Gosset had explained for nearly two years. Gosset's habitual complaintof thathe had become interestedin the correlationcoef- his laziness was merelyan excuse forpackingthe day ficient(like the standarderrorof the mean) because he with an unusual variety of pursuits, not always so needed the solutionto the problemin his work. "'perfectlyuseless"' as he claimed in a letter dated It happened thatI was mixed up witha lot of large scale 20 May 1924: experimentspartlyagriculturebut chieflyin an Experimental My laziness takes the formof pursuingwithtremendous Brewery. The agricultural(and indeed almost any) Experi- energy some perfectlyuseless aim while totally neglecting mentsnaturallyrequireda solutionof themean/S.E. problem, thingswhich oughtto be done at once. Instead of writingto and the ExperimentalBrewerywhich concerns such things you I read "Eminent Victorians;- when I oughtto be filling as the connectionbetween analysis of malt or hops, and the in numerous income tax forms (in order to recover much behaviourof the beer, and whichtakes a day to each unitof needed cash overpaid to the British Government) I play the experiment,thus limitingnumbers,demanded an answer patience; when I ought to be tyingup loganberrieswhose to such questions as, "If witha small numberof cases I get a crop will otherwisebe wasted, I spend my time in an alto- value r, what is the probabilitythatthereis reallya positive getherprematurethinningof pears. (Gosset 1970,no. 45) correlationof greatervalue than, say, .25?' (Gosset 1970, no. 1) In March 1922 Fisher sent Gosset some offprints, includingthe controversialarticle "On the Interpreta- Now Gosset explainedhow, beforehis year withPear- tionofx2 FromContingencyTables,' in whichdegrees son, he had evolved the differencecorrelationmethod offreedomwerefirstintroduced.The articlewas bound forsimilarlypracticalreasons; and why,thoughPear- to infuriatePearson. Yet in a covering letterFisher son had since withdrawnhis objections to the method seems to have suggested formationof a biometrical and indeedhad extendeditsapplications(see reviewby society that only Pearson could at thattime have ini- Fisher 1916), Gosset still doubted its usefulness,ex- tiated,an extensionoftheinformalsocietyofbiometers cept in its originalapplication,which he described as at UniversityCollege, to include "practitioners"using follows. smallsample statistics.Fisherknewhe was thelast man One of the points to be investigatedwas the connection Pearson was likelyto listento and hoped theidea might between the LaboratoryAnalysis of malts and the lengthof be betterreceived if it came fromGosset, who was time the resultingbeer remained potable, as measured by acidity. (If you have ever drunk Guinness in England you Pearson's friendas well as the firstsuch practitioner. will understandwhy.) But one of the chieffactorsin acidity Gosset replied productionis the temperature(both at brewingand during When I am nextover I willsee how theland lies at Univer- storage) and at that time our arrangementsfor stabilising sityCollege. Ofcourse ifthe'Biometers' are to be anyuse they temperatureat the ExperimentalBrewerywere ratherprimi- shouldincludetheleadingpractitioners, butI ratherfancythat tive. Hence I was forced to take firstdifferencesbetween Pearson's idea is thatit is a sort of UniversityCollege Club. successive brewings . . . to eliminatethe largetemperature Besides, as you say, he is perhaps a littleintolerantof criti- effect.(Gosset 1970, no. 2) cism, most of us tend to thatI fancyas we grow older. In most of yourdifferenceswithPearson I am altogether Gosset did not know that Fisher also was involved in on your side and in some cases I have agreed to differfrom biological work untilhe received a replyto his letter, him long ago. (Gosset 1970,no. 5) in which Fisher admittedhe was neitherMajor nor Professor,but had been a schoolteacher throughout Thus a curious three-wayrelationshipwas formed. the war and was now looking for a job. Fisher went Pearson and Fisher did not communicatedirectly,but on to discuss some statisticalwork he was doing with on occasions did throughGosset, and Gosset saved his orcharddata fromWoburn.Gosset's interestwas im- communicationswithPearson forthe occasions when mediatelyaroused: he visitedhim in person. By thistimeFisher's workon samplingdistributions Your fruittree work must be interesting:as a gardenerI am of course familiarwith alternate seasons of apples and was producing new results in response to Gosset's pears and (as a brewer) of hops. I don't know whetheryou needs. On 3 April 1922 Gosset inquiredabout the dis- are lookingfora job in thatline but I hearthatRussell intends tributionof an estimated regression coefficient,"'a
62 (? The AmericanStatistician,May 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions problemto whichhe presumablyreceived the solution prisingthat when Gosset checked the two tables, he by return,"as Fishernoted later(Gosset 1970,no. 5). declared them both "perfectlyrotten' (Gosset 1970, On 12 AprilGosset asked about the distribution of the no. 36). partial regression/correlation coefficients:"This also Fisher proposed a new methodof attack. Using the was probablyquicklyansweredforon May 5thhe refers value of t instead of z, he saw that the probabilities to the solution" (Gosset 1970, no. 6). The letterof could be arrivedat by an expansion in inversepowers 5 May has several pointsof interest.First,its opening of n. The expansion is asymptoticso that as n is in- shows Gosset's self-deprecation as a mathematician- creased, the numberof nonnegligibletermsof the ex- his feelingsabout Fisher's use of the word evidently pansion is reduced, and as n tends to infinity,the were to become a favoritejoke in his letters.He wrote: leading term in t2 alone remains. Thus, as Student's Many thanksforyourletterand thePhil. Trans. paper. As cos 0 formulabecame morecomplicatedwithincreas- to the formerin whichyou say thatit is encouragingto have ingn, Fisher's methodbecame moreand moresimple. your work understood, I fear that I can't conscientiously Before the calculations were begun, however, Gos- claim to understandit,but I take itforgrantedthatyou know set plannedto visitFisherin England.On 15September what you are talkingabout and thankfully use the results! 1922 he motoredover with his sister and stayed the It's not so muchthe mathematics,I can oftensay "Well, of course, that's beyondme, but we'll take it as correct" but nightin Harpenden. It was the firsttimehe and Fisher when I come to 'Evidently' I know that means two hours had met,and the meetingconfirmedall theirfavorable hard work at least beforeI can see why. preconceptions.Althoughthetalkcenteredon thenew tabulation and its multitudinoususes, Gosset could The same lettershows thatFisherwas usingStudent's not conceive thathis table could ever be so important tables (enteredforthe rightnumberof degrees of free- as Fisherclaimed. Afterthe visithe sent-Fishera copy dom) to test the significanceof regressions("which," of Student's tables, "as you are the only man that's Gosset remarks,"is of course very satisfactoryfor ever likelyto use them!" (Gosset 1970, no. 11). Student!"), of partial correlations and regressions, The tables had been in constantuse at the brewery and ofthedifference betweentwo means fromsamples forthe past 14 years, but they were almost unknown of differentsize-a novel notion to Gosset. Thus it elsewhere.Gosset accepted theirneglectbythestatisti- appears thatFisheralreadyhad a unifiedunderstanding cal establishmentwith a good grace. In contrast, of the distributiontheoryinvolved, which had been Fisher's sense ofjustice was outraged.In a "Historical progressivelyilluminatedfor him throughgeometric Note" at the beginningof Statistical Methods for representation.Moreoverthe lettershows thatFisher Research Wotkers (14th ed., 1970, p. 23), we read: had suggestedthecalculationofnew tablesofStudent's distribution and a new methodof calculation,forGos- "Student's" workwas not quicklyappreciated(it had, in fact, been totallyignoredin the journal in which it had ap- set writes,"I could probablyget theworkof tabulating peared), and fromthe firsteditionit has been one of the chief your integraldone easily enough, though whetherI purposes of thisbook to make betterknownthe effectof his should be allowed to publishthe work of the man I'd researches,and ofmathematicalworkconsequentuponthem. get to do it is anothermatter" (Gosset 1970, no. 7). Duringthe visitwithFisher,Gosset suggestedsend- That year, for the firsttime, Gosset had a statistical ing his assistant, E. Somerfield,to Rothamstedfor assistant; but he knew the brewery'srestrictivepolicy a fewmonthsto studywithFisher. The visitwas even- on publicationsmightmake trouble. tuallyarrangedto beginin December 1922.The method of instruction,workingthroughfielddata, was neverin doubt.Gosset approved: "What you suggestabout run- 3. THE TABULATION OF t ningSomerfieldover any figurescomingin fromyour various departmentsis exactly what I want." But he Two changes were made fromStudent's former7 cautioned Fisher: "You will, I fear,findthatyou will table to make the new tabulationssuitable for all the have to be even moreelementarywithSomerfieldthan new applications.First,thenumberofobservationsfor withme, but thatwill be rathergood for you as your which the table was enteredwas changed to the num- faultis thatyou considerus all to be mathematicians' ber of degrees of freedom.Second, the now familiar (Gosset 1970,no. 13). The visitproved highlysatisfac- values of t = z(n - 1)1/2 were tabulated instead of:. tory to all parties. Soon after Somerfield's return, This correctionstandardizedthe gradingof the scale Gosset confessed that his assistant now understood that had previouslybecome progressivelycoarser for Fisher's writingsbetterthanhe did; moreover,Somer- largervalues ofn, and it incidentallymade thegrading fieldwas permitted to publishtheworkdone at Rotham- finerthroughoutthe table. sted, although, Fisher's annoyance, it had to be to In calculatingthe tabulated values in 1907, Gosset undera pseudonym,"Mathetes." had used the device of integratingby partsin termsof Meanwhile,Gosset began tabulations.In October he cos 6. The original tables did not extend beyond wrote, "'I haven't had time to do anythingwith the n = 10; since the formulaincludes an extratermeach Type VII [Student's curve], apples at home and busi- time n is increased by two, the method becomes ness at the Brewery,but I hope to get on to it soon'' cumbersome for largern. The tables had later been (Gosset 1970,no. 12). A monthlater,however(to quote extended and, in view of the difficulties, it is not sur- a fragmentonly), he wrote:
(? The AmericanStatistician,Ma' 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2 63
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Last nightI checked your values forx = 1 (discoveringa more accurate than a randomized one. In his reply slight slip) from your correction formulae and calculated Gosset invoked practicalexperience,butgraduallyhis the same values to seven places. As I used the sum of at least reasoningbecame moreexplicit.On readingthe proofs fournumbersof 7 places they also have an errorin the 7th place due to approximations,but the correspondenceis quite ofStatisticalMethodsforResearch Wor-ker-s in October wonderfullyclose. (Gosset 1970, no. 13) 1924, Gosset protested: "I don't expect to convince you butI don't agree withyourcontrolledrandomness. ImagineFisher at Rothamstedworkinghis motorMil- You would want a large lunatic asylum foroperators lionaire,a large electricmachineon whichone turned who are apt to make mistakesenougheven now" (Gos- a crankto set thenumberand inserteda plungerto start set 1970, no. 50). In April 1928. criticizinga block operation. He providedthe correctionformulasand a design because the errorwas largerthan if the same table of values calculated fromhis expansion. Imagine treatmentshad been laid out in a Latin square, Gosset Gosset puttinghis hand-operatedBaby Triumphator argued: intohis rucksackand carryingit home to workon the The fact is that thereale two principlesinvolved in the tables, calculating, checking, recalculating. Imagine Latin Square, of whichI attachthe greaterimportanceto the Somerfield, left without the Triumphator at the balancing of the errorsand you to the randomisation.It is brewery,and, as Gosset reported, myopinionthatin thegreatmajorityof cases, the randomisa- tion is supplied to any properlybalanced experimentby the ...borrowing fromall and sundry.Yesterday I foundhim soil itself.(Gosset 1970,no. 92) withthe machineNoah used when quantitysurveyingbefore his voyage. The storygoes that he subsequentlybarteredit Gosset understoodperfectlythe essential role of ran- for a barrel of porter with the originalGuinness. Anyhow domizationand himselfpointedit out in criticizingthe he doesn't seem to have been able to keep it dryand Somer- fieldwasn't strongenough to turnthe handle. (Gosset 1970, LanarkshireMilk Experiment(Student 1931), but this no. 13) did not alter his conviction. In 1936, in advocating, beforethe Royal StatisticalSociety, Beaven's half-drill Apart from Fisher's calculations and assistance in stripmethodfor large-scale cooperative experiments checking, Gosset was to recalculate the whole table (Student 1936),he claimed that"since the tendencyof himself,under the restrictionthat the calculator was deliberate randomisingis to increase the error, a in demand at the breweryforhalfthe year. At the end balanced arrangementlike the half-drillis best." of February1923he warnedFisher,"People are getting Fisher was angered by this, and a heated debate fol- querulousabout the machine,and I reallycannotspare lowed. Fisherthenproduced "A Test of the Supposed day-lightto workon [it] at the Brewery,so I fearthat Precisionof SystematicArrangements"(Barbacki and I shan't do much more tillnext winter"(Gosset 1970, Fisher 1936),whichGosset answered in an articlepub- no. 19). It was mid-Octoberwhen Gosset announced, lishedposthumously(Student 1938). Afterconsidering "The calculating season having now commenced, I the usually slighteffectsof departuresfromassump- took a calculatingmachinehome on Saturdayand be- tionsof normalvariationand of equal variance,Gosset gan work last night" (Gosset 1970, no. 34). continued: If, however the samplingbe not random,thereare such possibilitiesof drawingfalse conclusions that Prof. Fisher 4. ARGUING THINGS THROUGH has introduceda systemof artificialrandomizingto ensure thatthe thirdconditionis satisfiedand brands all other sys- tems invalid. Even while he was makingthe calculations for his Nevertheless,it is possible, by balancingsources of error new tables, Gosset was reconsideringFisher's paper which would otherwiselead to bias, to obtain arrangements (1922) on the goodness of fitof regressionformulas, of greaterprecision which are neverthelesseffectivelyran- in which it was shown thatthe significanceof regres- dom, by which I mean thatthe departurefromrandomness sion formulas,linearor nonlinear,simpleor multiple, is only liable to affectour conclusions to the same sort of extent as do departures from normalityor inequality of may be treatedexactly by Student's test. Althoughin variances. (p. 200) May he had accepted Fisher's results, on rereading the paper aftervisitingFisher, Gosset became uneasy The argumentof the rest of the article supported and wroteFishermorethanonce beforehe was satisfied this claim. thatthe test was legitimate.He chose to workthrough Gosset's obstinacyin debate was not withoutvalue Fisher's problematically"obvious" argumentsand, if to science, forhe raised pointsthatneeded considera- necessary,to raise pointsand argue themthroughwith tion or elucidationand persevereduntilhe was satis- Fisheruntilhe was sure he understoodand agreed with fied. His difficultyin 1922 was one that has troubled the reasoning. In 1923, even before the principleof later statisticians,it is perhaps the firstinstance in randomizationwas in print,Gosset expressed skepti- which Fisher's concept of the "relevant subset" be- cism about therandomizationoffieldexperiments,and comes critical.In makingthe regressionof X'on x,-and on this subject Fisher never whollyconvinced him. testingthe significanceof deviationsabout the regres- The subject arose during lengthycorrespondence sion line b, Fisher had proved thatthe distributionof about the analysisof experimentsusingBeaven's half- the ratio of a regressioncoefficienth to its estimated drillstriparrangement.Fisherhad evidentlyasked why standard error follows the tdistribution. It was not Gosset believed a systematicdesignto be intrinsically obvious to Gosset thatthe resultingtestwas legitimate
64 ? The American Statistician,Max 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions because the samplingdistribution ofthex's themselves place, mostlyit is trueby .0001 only, and quite a numberof was not taken into account. Fisher, however, argued otherones. The factis thatI was even more ignorantwhen I made the firsttable than I am now and thoughtI was going thatthe regressionwas not made on the whole popula- to be accurate to 4 places by taking5 in the working!and the tionof possiblex's, butonlyon the sample; forthetest second was of course constructedon the same lines though in question,the sample of values ofx actuallyobtained not by me. I oughtto have checked it myself,but musthave formedwhat he was later to call the relevantsubset, been prettycasual about it. Anyhowthe old man is just about and forthemthe mean and the variance were fixedby fed up withme as a computerand wouldn'teven let me cor- rect my own table. I don't blame himeither. the data themselves. Whetherhe will have anythingto do withour table I don't know,I ratherdoubtit,butpersonallyI feelI could hardlyput itbeforehimunless you are preparedto do quitea lotofcheck- 5. PUBLICATION OF THE t TABLES AND ing eitheryourselfor per Miss Mackenzie. Justas well you THEIR WIDER APPLICATIONS didn't take that table fromBiometrika!It has been rathera miserablefortnight findingout what an ass I made of myself FromthetimeFishergraspedtheunifieddistribution and fromthe point of view of the new table whollywasted. However, I beginworkagain tomorrow.(Gosset 1970,no. 36) theoryforthe generallinearmodel, events moved fast towards new applications. His investigation,"The Fisher must have jibbed at more checking,for two Goodness of Fit ofRegressionFormulaeand theDistri- weeks later Gosset wrote, "It seems rathera shame bution of Regression Coefficients,"was published in to burdenyou withcheckingafterwhat you say, but I July 1922. In it he identifiedas the test criterionthe thinkI may fairlyput your own tables up to you" functionwe know as F, and gave the correctformula (Gosset 1970, no. 37). for its distribution.Thus the theoreticaldistribution Fisher was busy writingStatistical Methods, and appropriatefortestsof significanceforthe analysis of Mackenzie (his statistical assistant) her Master's variance was known. The analysis of variance itself thesis. When Gosset was invitedto act as refereefor appeared in 1923and FisherreintroducedtheF test in this thesis in February 1924, he responded charac- termsofz = ?/21og F. In May 1923Fisherwas evidently teristically, tryingto get out a table of F; but tabulationin terms I suppose theyappointedme because theThesis was about of z had obvious advantages, and it may be this idea barley, so of course a brewer was required, otherwise it Gosset referredto in October when he wrote, "I like seems to me ratherirregular.I fearthat some of Miss Mac- the resultforz in the case of that horriblecurve you kenzie's mathematicsmay be too 'obvious' forme. (Gosset are so fondof'' (Gosset 1970, no. 33). 1970, no. 40) By the summerof 1924, Fisher (1924) was ready to But he accepted the appointment,and this time he summarize the relationshipsof the distributionsin- stayedtheweekendat Fisher's home: "I travellightso volved, the normal,x2, t, and z. He had completed ifyou willlet me knowyouraddress I willcome straight the typescriptof Statistical Methods for Research up withmy pack on my back" (Gosset 1970, no. 43). Workers,in which tables of these quantitieswere to Possibly he was a littleapprehensiveabout Pearson's appear, but he had no tables. Gosset had felt they reaction to theirreferees' report;his excuse in May shouldofferthet tables forpublicationfirstto Pearson, for"rousing myselffrommylethargyto writeto you" but therewere doubts about the copyrightof this and was that he was "consumed with curiosityto know Gosset's previoustables. The outcomewas thatFisher whatthe University[of London] thoughtof our report calculated all the tables forthe book himself. on Miss Mackenzie" (Gosset 1970, no. 45). What happened when Gosset approached Pearson Withthisletterof 20 May 1924Gosset sentthe com- mustbe told in his own words,in a letterof 23 Novem- pleted tables, saying, ber 1923. It is now up to you to writean account of the tables, and Dear Fisher, please don't let too much be clear or obvious, I'd like to Your interpolationformulaworks like a charm though understandas much as possible what I have been doing for why the Dickens you chose those particularvalues of n I the last two years.... can't think.I can only go on "Watsonin'!" P.S. Ifyou could let me have youraccount quiteearlynext I was over in London on my way to and fromhome the monthI can take it to K.P. when I next get over. weekend beforelast and dropped in on K.P. I broached the subject of a joint table withan introductorynote by you and Fisher hastened to send his contribution,and Gosset he was preparedto consider it: he would I thinkhave taken took it with him to England. "But," as he explained it butfora mostunfortunate occurrence. Whilewe were talk- later,"unfortunately I leftitat homewhenI wentto the ing he mentionedthat he was bringingout a new editionof Tables for Biometriciansand I said 'Oh thereare one or two Laboratory" (Gosset 1970,no. 60). It was May of the mistakesin my small table in it,' referringto a discovery of followingyear beforehe deliveredtheirworkto Pear- some in the odd numbersof .2 mentionedin the introduction son. Two weeks later, on 12 June 1925, Gosset re- to my second table in Biometrika.'Well we'll put thatright.' ported: So I wentaway to get the correctionsforhim. That involved gettinga 5thplace forn = 9 and I couldn'tcheck the4thplace. K.P. is very anxious to publish your note about the use I leftmy attemptand went home and when I came back on of the table, but doesn't like the binomial approximation myway to Dublin I foundthathe agreed withme and thatthe whichhe consideredrequiresproofof convergence.It was in new table was wrong. On furtherinvestigation,both tables vain thatI pointedout that,convergingor diverging,theproof were foundto be perfectlyrotten.All .1 and .2 wrongin 4th of the puddinglies (to me doubtlessnot to you) in thefactthat.
(? The AmericanStatistician,May 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2 65
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions yougetaboutsevenplacesthesamewithn = 21 to t = 6. and jokinglywould remark,"I take it thatwhateverit Anyhow,he retumsbothand I send themherewith.... is followsat once 'obviously' froma considerationof oughtto go into In any case [thepaperon applications] Biometrika.(Gosset1970,no. 61) n-dimensionalgeometry" (Gosset 1970, no. 12), or demandof Fisherwhethera certainequation came out Soon after,itwas decidednotto publishtheworkas a of n-dimensionalspace "or what is much the same whole,underjointauthorship, butin partsseparately, thing,your head" (Gosset 1970, no. 61). andGosset continued tohope thepaperonapplications withthetablesthatwereacceptableto Pear- [Received August 1980. Revised October 1980.] together son wouldappearinBiometrika. Butitwas notto be. In September all thetablesand paperswereaccepted REFERENCES forpublicationin Metron,wheretheyappearedto- gether,just fouryearsaftertheyhad firstbeen con- BARBACKI, S., and FISHER, R.A. (1936),"A Test of theSup- templated,and 14yearsafterthatfirst correspondence posed Precisionof SystematicArrangements," Annals of Eugenics, 7, 189- 193,CollectedPapers ofR.A. Fisher,3, no. 139. thathad led Fisher to thegeometric representationof BOX, JOAN FISHER (1978), R.A. Fisher, The Life of a Scientist, the sample, whichcame to its full in fruition his New York:JohnWiley. remarkablepaper "Applicationsof Student'sDis- EISENHART, CHURCHILL (1979), "On the TransitionFrom tribution." 'Student's' z to 'Student's' t," The American Statistician, Fisherhad written to Gosseton 17July1924: 33,6-10. FISHER, RONALD AYLMER (1971-1974),CollectedPapers of I enclosethetwonotesI mentioned,thefirstofwhichis an of R.A. Fisher(5 vols.),ed. J.H. Bennett,Adelaide:University attemptto givesomeidea ofthemultitude ofuses to which Adelaide.(See references Papers.) to individual yourtablemaybe put,andthesecondis a formal statement (1912), "On an AbsoluteCriterion forFittingFrequency oftheapproximationformula. is largerthanI hadin- Thefirst Curves," Messenger of Mathematics, 41, 155-160, Collected tended,and to makeitat all completeshouldbe largerstill, Papers, 1, no. 1. butI shallnothave timeto makeit so, as I am sailingfor (1916), "Biometrika," Eugenics Review, 8, 62-64, Collected Canada on the 25th,and willnot be back tillSeptember. Papers, 1, no. 7. (Gosset1970,no. 48) ofCorrela- (1921),"On the'ProbableError'ofa Coefficient tionDeducedFroma SmallSample,"Metron,1,3-32, Collected In thispaperFisher(1925)gavea proofofStudent's Papers, 1, no. 14. results,whichin1908hadbeenpartially Then intuitive. Formulae,and (1922),"The Goodnessof Fitof Regression ofRegression theDistribution Journal Coefficients," oftheRoyal he presentedapplicationsofStudent'stablesappropri- Statistical Society, 85, 597-612, Collected Papers, 1, no. 20. of two means,and of ate to testingthe significance YieldingtheErrorFunctionsof (1924),"On a Distribution linear,curvilinear,and multipleregressions.Finally, Several Well Known Statistics,"Proceedings of theInternational he introduced thewiderclass ofF (or equivalentlyz) Congressof Mathematics,Toronto,2, 805-813, CollectedPapers, whichhe identified distributions, as being 1,no. 26. (1925), Statistical Methods for Research Workers,Edin- ...relatedto Student'sdistributioninthesamemanner as burgh:Oliverand Boyd. thatof x2 is relatedto thenormaldistribution. This wider Metron, of 'Student's'Distribution," (1925),"Applications class of distributionsappears(i) in the studyof intraclass 5, 90-104, Collected Papers, 2, no. 43. correlations(ii) in thecomparison of estimatesof thevari- GOSSET, W.S. (1970),LettersFrom W.S. Gossetto R.A. Fisher1915- ance(iii)intesting thegoodnessoffitofregressionlines(iv)of 1936,withsummaries byR.A. Fisheranda forewordbyL. McMul- testingthesignificance ofa multiple or(v) ofa cor- correlation len,Dublin:Arthur GuinnessSon and Co. (Dublin)Ltd. Issued relationratio.(Gosset1970,no. 102) (Lettersin thisvolumeare numbered.) forprivatecirculation. PEARSON,EGON S. (1968),"StudiesintheHistory ofProbability Althoughthearticlewas not,in fact,publishedfor18 and Statistics.XX. Some EarlyCorrespondence BetweenW.S. monthsafterbeingwritten, Fisherdid notenlargeit. Gosset,R.A. Fisherand K. PearsonWithNotesand Commen- (Apartfromanything else, forsix monthsafterhe re- tary," Biometrika,55, 445-457. SOPER, H.E., YOUNG, A.W.,CAVE, B.Y., LEE, A., andPEAR- turnedfromCanada Fisher was calculatingthetables SON, KARL (1917),"On theDistribution Coef- oftheCorrelation and,withGossetand Somerfield, working onthe proofs ficient 11,328-413. in SmallSamples,"Biometrika, ofStatisticalMethodsforResearch Workers.)Perhaps "STUDENT" (1908a),TheProbableErrorofa Mean,"Biometrika, if he had extendedthe last section,he could have 6, 1. avoidedthe repeatedmisunderstandings thatarose a Coefficient," (1908b),"Probable Errorof a Correlation Biometrika,7, 302. decade later about of justification the test of signifi- Due to of SpuriousCorrelation (1914),"The Elimination cance fortheanalysis of variance.But the argument, PositioninTimeor Space," Biometrika,10, 179. thoughconcise,was complete.It even containedan ofObserva- (1925),"New TablesforTestingtheSignificance algebraicproofanalogousto thegeometric methodof tions," Metron,5, 25-32. proof, whose as validity, Fisherput it (p. 97), "may (1931),"The LanarkshireMilkExperiment," Biometrika, 23, 398. notbe universally admitted." Jour- (1936),"Cooperationin Large-ScaleExperiments," It is rathersad thatevenwiththisaidto understand- nal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Supplement),3, 115. ing,Gossetfoundthegeometric representation always (1938),"ComparisonBetweenBalancedand RandomAr- highlymysterious; buthe acceptedthemystification, rangements 29, 363. of FieldPlots,"Biometrika,
66 ? The AmericanStatistician,May 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Interview With Craig Owens Author(s) : Anders Stephanson and Craig Owens Source: Social Text, No. 27 (1990), Pp. 55-71 Published By: Duke University Press Stable URL: Accessed: 16/09/2009 21:30