Merci Jean-Louis, I am sure this is an order of magnitude more interesting than the shallow Le Monde article..!

]]>Thanks Radford: I agree that stats is not maths. The paradox is that in the French academic system there is no recognition of statistics as a separate field, which means statistics is always part of an applied or a generic maths department. This means in particular that university and CNRS positions are generally in competition with other branches of mathematics.

]]>I would hope that statisticians are not considered mathematicians (just by virtue of being statisticians), since statistics is not a subfield of math, just like physics is not a subfield of math, despite both of these fields using lots of math.

You can easily see that statistics is not math from the prevalence of debates about things like Bayesian versus frequentist inference, or the possibility of demonstrating causality from observational data. These are not debates about mathematics.

]]>From this sole sentence, conditional on the context and with all due provisions (!), it sounds like statisticians are not considered mathematicians. Maybe by other mathematicians than CV.

]]>A mathematician should be honoured to be able to ‘speak statistics’. Only so many mathematicians are boggled by the seeming inexactness. They just plain miss the point.

IMHO, as a PDE guy who spends 95% of my time doing (sloppy) applied statistics, the bridge between pure maths that I learned in school and stats is one which most mathematicians are incapable of crossing. I’ll bet Villani feels he can be on both sides of the bridge at once.

]]>