1. There is a classical distinction, which has now and then been raised into a metaphysical principle, between two human attitudes toward the world. The distinction is that between the contemplative and the active. Often these poles are personified: Socrates, the seeker after truth; Alexander, the man of action. In more contemporary terms, the contrast is between Thought and Action. It is of course true that we all partake of both of these principles, the contemplative and the active. Nevertheless, there are times and places when they can be encountered in fairly pure form. The mathematician in his study devising the proof of a theorem comes close to the contemplative pole, and the director of a sales campaign managing his staff seems to come close to the active pole. There are relatively few activities which can be approached both by the thinker and the activist with equal authority. The practise of statistics is such a rare activity. There both the man oriented toward thought and contemplation, and the man oriented toward action and decision can play a vigorous role in the development of a vitally important branch of knowledge. This would be fine and dandy, except for one thing. They contradict each other. Statisticians don't generally see it this way, of course. The way they mostly see it, statistics is a field that abounds in healthy controversy and argument, and any apparent contradiction is mere appearance, resulting from the presence within statistics of a number of different but by no means contradictory points of view. In a sense I guess this is true, though the exact relationship between the various points of view has never been spelled out, except in question begging ways, so it is hard to tell whether or not they are compatible. There are instances, however, in which it certainly appears that