[Feature: Yukichi Fukuzawa and Statistics] Roundtable Discussion: Looking at "Statistics" over a 150-Year Span

Today, we are holding a special roundtable discussion on the theme of "Yukichi Fukuzawa and Statistics," and I would like to look at statistics over a 150-year span with the experts present here.

While it is said that the modern era is the age of big data and AI, it is statistics that draws meaningful wisdom from big data. Furthermore, since data science and statistics form the foundation of AI, we are currently seeing a boom in statistics and data science.

First, I would like to ask how you view this current situation. Mr. Tsubaki, shall we start with you?

I serve as the Director of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics. The institute was established 76 years ago in 1944, during the war. Looking at newspapers from that time, it says, "In the enemy nation of the United States, the current war is referred to as a mathematical or physical war, and they are carrying out the systematic mobilization of statistical mathematicians." Seventy-five years have passed since then, and while it is not a war, there are now many more opportunities where various policies, actions, or operations are directly guided by data. I believe we have entered an era where data is extremely important and highly valuable. For that reason, there is a demand for the enhancement of statistics education and data science education from elementary, junior high, and high schools through to universities.

Against this historical background, although the Institute of Statistical Mathematics is a research institution, since data science departments have only just begun to be established in Japanese universities, we find ourselves in a position where we must support such higher education for the time being.

I first encountered statistics when I was a university freshman. Initially, I was interested in econometrics as applied to economics. From there, I gradually became interested in how statistical data, including statistical surveys, should be created, and recently I have become interested in how so-called statistics or statistical surveys were transplanted into Japan.

However, since I have only recently become interested in that area, I hope to learn from everyone today. Modern data science involves data captured in a different form than traditional statistical surveys, so the challenge for me is how to consider this in relation to my research to date.

I specialize in the history of Oriental political thought and comparative political thought. My main interest is examining statistics and statistical science from the perspective of the history of political thought.

What meaning do statistics have when considering the formation of the modern state? Regarding this intellectual task, there is an accumulation of research in the Western world by Michel Foucault, Ian Hacking, T.M. Porter, and others, but what was the case in modern Japan? I am researching how people in Japan encountered Western statistical knowledge during the transition period of the late Edo and Meiji eras, and what role it played in the state formation of modern Japan, tracing back to the Rangaku (Dutch Studies) of the early modern period.

Last year, there was an issue regarding inappropriate surveys in the "Monthly Labour Survey" issued by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. This also relates to the fundamental question of how to position statistics within the governance of the modern Japanese state, and I believe it is an issue that should be re-examined today, 150 years after the Meiji Restoration.

Since I am a junior high and high school teacher, speaking a little from the standpoint of statistics education, I believe that statistics education has been enhanced so significantly over the last 10 years that it could be called a leap forward.

Statistics has long been part of the mathematics curriculum in junior high and high schools, but for a long time, it was not actually taught. However, with the previous revision of the Course of Study, statistics was finally introduced in earnest, and with this year's revision, statistics is to be handled not only in mathematics but also in information studies and various other subjects from elementary through high school. I believe the urgent task is how to further enhance statistics education.

Until now, Japanese universities did not have departments of statistics, and it was only three years ago that a Faculty of Data Science was finally opened at Shiga University. However, at Keio's SFC, they have been focusing on data science education for over 20 years.

Waseda also founded the Center for Data Science in 2017, and it seems it was reorganized into the "Center for Data Science" this April.

Yes. Prior to the establishment of that center, there were quite a few faculty members who wanted to develop statistics education university-wide. In 2010, the Japanese Joint Statistical Meeting was held at Waseda University. I was one of the executive committee members, and when we gathered everyone belonging to statistics-related societies, there were 15 or 16 professors of statistics within the university, and I was surprised there were so many. Later, since the current President Aiji Tanaka is also someone who incorporated statistical analysis into political science early on, Professor Toshiyasu Matsushima, the center director, formed a statistical organization that integrates the entire university in a way that resonated with President Tanaka.

It has only just been established, but if it takes root, I believe the center will become the core for university-wide statistics education and, by extension, lead to data science education.

I would like to return to the present day at the end, but there was a statistics boom in Japan from the end of the Edo period to the Meiji era. First, could Mr. Okubo speak about that?

As pointed out by Professor Akira Hayami, a Professor Emeritus of Keio University, there was a phenomenon called "statistics fever" in Japan during the late Edo and early Meiji periods. The pioneer of this was "Bankoku Seihyō" (supervised by Yukichi Fukuzawa, translated by Hiroaki Okamoto). This work was a translation by Fukuzawa and others of "Statistical Tables of All Countries on Earth" written by the Dutchman P.A. de Jong, and it was published in 1860 (Man'en 1).

Of course, besides Fukuzawa, many Rangaku and Western scholars of the same period, such as Koji Sugi—who would later be called the father of modern Japanese statistics—Hiroyuki Kato, Shigeki Nishimura, and Rinsho Mitsukuri, were interested in Western statistics and worked on translations.

One milestone among these was the study abroad in the Netherlands by Amane Nishi and Mamichi Tsuda. Nishi and Tsuda, who went to the Netherlands in 1863 (Bunkyu 3), learned European statistics directly from Professor Simon Vissering of Leiden University, an expert in economics and statistics, and pioneered the introduction of those results to Japan.

Statistics began in Europe in the 17th century, and as it was a very groundbreaking discipline, a statistics boom first occurred in Europe. Does this mean that in Japan, statistics was viewed in the same way as in the West?

In East Asia, as seen in the "Shujing" (Book of Documents) and "Nihon Shoki," land and population surveys had been conducted since ancient times, and under the Tokugawa political system, "Ninbetsu-arame" (census) was implemented.

However, scholars in the late Edo and early Meiji periods perceived statistics as a different, unknown discipline—a "new science of the civilized world" alongside "railroads, telegraphs, and steam." Because of this, a debate over the translation of the word "statistics" even arose, involving even Ogai Mori.

This also relates to trends surrounding statistics in contemporary Europe. As Goethe wrote in his "Italian Journey" about "an age of statistics-mania like today," from the late 18th to the 19th century in Europe, statistical materials flooded the streets, and the statisticalization of society progressed. From there, modern statistics was formed as a new science, centered around Quetelet and others. It was also deeply involved in the formation of modern European states.

It was right in the midst of this that Japan opened its doors and encountered statistics as a "new science of the civilized world."

I study modern statistics, which is primarily based on probability, but I believe that the German school of state science—which influenced the Meiji era and leads to current survey statistics—and the flow where both science-oriented and humanities-oriented statistics merged at Quetelet, were established all at once as a modern science. Quetelet's method had a great influence, and it crossed over to Britain to become something close to modern mathematical statistics.

I would like to look more closely at the relationship between Fukuzawa and statistics. In "Bankoku Seihyō," he translated and published statistical data, but I think he was also one of the first to realize the usefulness of statistical thinking itself.

That is exactly right. The aforementioned "Bankoku Seihyō" from the late Edo period is a statistical table showing the national conditions of various countries through data. However, Fukuzawa deepened his reflection further and delved into the question of "what is statistical thinking?"

One result of that is "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization" (1875 [Meiji 8]). As is well known, in this book, Fukuzawa engages with Buckle's "History of Civilization in England." What Buckle introduces in this work as a methodology for the history of civilization is Quetelet's statistics.

Buckle points out that Quetelet's statistics made the scientification of history possible. The theme of Buckle's "History of Civilization in England" was to attempt a scientific description of the history of civilization by collecting vast amounts of data and using statistical methods to derive certain quantitative regularities from the mental phenomena of human society through mass observation.

In "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization," using this "History of Civilization in England" as a medium, Fukuzawa introduces Quetelet's statistical findings regarding crime rates and mortality rates, and points out the following: "Statistics" is precisely the methodology for the "scholar who discusses civilization" to observe and compare the "mental development of the masses" and "clarify the true state of affairs."

In this regard, Yukichi Fukuzawa can be considered to have had a very excellent intuition as a thinker.

Fukuzawa probably realized that while the field of natural science is a very law-governed world, one could find similar regularities in the social sciences as well if one adopted a statistical perspective.

He was very excited by this and thought that if he used this, he could capture social issues as well. I believe that his foresight lay in the fact that he noticed this early on and introduced it in his writings.

Interestingly, Quetelet originally studied astronomy and moved into statistics from there. The Rangaku of the Edo period, which Fukuzawa used as his academic foundation, also had a thick tradition and accumulation of astronomy concerning the laws of the universe.

From astronomy, which "measures the heavens," to statistics, which "measures human society." I believe it is possible to position Fukuzawa's statistical endeavors as an extension of the cultural vein of early modern Rangaku.

In the same "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization," Fukuzawa speaks not only of the law of large numbers but also of the point of deriving causality, such as how the number of marriages changes with the price of rice, as one aspect of statistics. Also, in "Jiji Shōgon" (1881 [Meiji 14]), although the argument is quite rough, he introduces normal distribution tables and presents "lineages of genius" with the intent of supporting the shizoku (former samurai class).

Therefore, I think he read quite deeply into various statistical concepts beyond just the law of large numbers and included them in his works.

The study of lineages of genius in Europe was done by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. In his work "Hereditary Genius" (1869), he proposed concepts like correlation and quantiles, stating that a "statistical science" must be created.

In this flow, there is Karl Pearson's concept of "The Grammar of Science" (1892), which was strongly influenced by Galton. This is the idea based on the premise that "it is not a science because the subject is scientific like natural science, but the process makes science a science. Anything can be made into a science."

However, hearing this now, Yukichi Fukuzawa might be directly linked from Quetelet, and there are parts where the period Yukichi Fukuzawa was working feels earlier.

The normal distribution regarding "natural talent" and heredity in "Jiji Shōgon" was something Fukuzawa himself actually read Galton and introduced. While applying that argument, he considers the issue of samurai lineages.

I see.

From this, we can see that Fukuzawa was consistently interested in the issue of statistics.

In "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization," Fukuzawa takes up marriage and points out that while many people think of marriage proposals as fate, such as the theory of the god of matchmaking at Izumo Taisha, from the perspective of "statistics," it is different; he declares that the number of marriages in a given year is determined by the "rice market price." For Fukuzawa, statistics was the most powerful discipline for overturning prejudices and fallacies circulating among the people.

Therefore, when introducing Galton in "Jiji Shōgon," he says that although people say everyone is equal, in reality they are not, and human talent differs by lineage.

However, this actually contradicts the opening sentence of Fukuzawa's famous "Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning)" (First Volume, 1872): "Heaven does not create one person above another, nor one person below another."

On one hand, he values statistics that coolly elucidates general facts, and on the other, he lectures on normative political philosophy concerning ethics such as human equality; I believe this very ambivalence is the interesting part of Yukichi Fukuzawa.

I think that is what one might call Fukuzawa's multi-perspective thinking. As Mr. Tsubaki mentioned, Karl Pearson later said that "statistics is the grammar of science," and I believe "jitsugaku (science)" is one of Fukuzawa's major ideas.

Fukuzawa gave the kanji for "jitsugaku" the phonetic reading "science" ("Keio University Kiji"). Fukuzawa's jitsugaku meant looking at things scientifically even in the social sciences, and when asking how one could look at things scientifically, one major tool was statistics. I believe that because Fukuzawa learned about statistics, he realized he could look at things scientifically in any field, which led to the spirit of jitsugaku.

I agree. It is well known that Fukuzawa appealed that what Oriental learning lacked was mathematical science. For Fukuzawa, who advocated jitsugaku, statistics likely held a very important meaning.

In fact, in "One Hundred Discourses of Fukuzawa," there is a sentence stating that one cannot discuss civilization with someone who lacks the "thought of the statistical whole." That statistical thinking, which looks over society as a whole rather than just individual phenomena and objectively analyzes facts, is important.

At the same time, this is also about perceiving society itself as an autonomous existence. How to translate the word "society" was an issue in the early Meiji years, but the "thought of the statistical whole" is also a gaze toward an autonomous society created by people, distinct from the state.

Does that mean Karl Pearson wrote the book "The Grammar of Science" with a similar meaning to Fukuzawa?

I believe so. In Britain, Nightingale greatly admired Quetelet and told Galton to "create a department of statistics at Oxford." Both Nightingale and Darwin were Galton's cousins. In that sense, he was influenced by Darwinism and used statistical problem-solving as a concept.

In the flow of the times, in order to reform society through statistics, various social phenomena could also be turned into laws, and the person who systematized that process of law-making was Karl Pearson, who was a physicist. Quetelet was an astronomer, but Karl Pearson was also a professor of mechanics and geometry. I think he was originally someone with an extremely physical sense. That is why he became able to draw a system related to social phenomena using mathematical methods. In that sense, I believe modern statistics and mathematical statistics developed greatly in Britain in the first half of the 20th century.

I found the discussion very interesting. Was the statistics or statistical science that Fukuzawa captured intended as something to identify causal relationships, or was it an awareness of statistics for capturing phenomena as they are? Which do you think was stronger?

I don't know how consistent an argument can be made from the perspective of modern statistical theory, but basically, it can be considered that both sides existed. For example, even in "Jiji Shōgon," in the fourth volume, he compares and examines data regarding the national conditions of various countries.

However, moving into the fifth volume, as mentioned earlier, he steps forward into arguments concerning Galton's natural talent, heredity, and lineage.

Pearson takes a very descriptive stance, not capturing causal relationships very philosophically but simply as the order of things. Whether that is good or not is another issue.

A point to be noted in relation to this is the Buckle issue in the early Meiji years. Buckle, who aimed for the scientification of history in "History of Civilization in England," went beyond Quetelet to capture statistical results more philosophically and causally, applying them to his own history of civilization.

In particular, Buckle used "statistical" methods and data to analyze that in Asia, a non-European world, fear and superstition were rampant due to its climate and soil, and because despotic politics were practiced, the development of civilization was being hindered.

However, if Buckle's theory of Asian stagnation based on natural determinism were true, Asian countries, including Japan, would be destined to remain uncivilized or semi-civilized forever and would never be able to civilize. This problem troubled scholars in the early Meiji years and developed into a debate in the "Meiroku Zasshi."

Fukuzawa's "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization" can be described as a book that challenged an extremely difficult intellectual task: while highly evaluating the statistical methods used by Buckle, it simultaneously sought to overcome the natural-deterministic and fatalistic theory of Asian stagnation backed by Buckle's Orientalism, and to derive an original vision for civilization.

That's interesting.

Amane Nishi and Mamichi Tsuda, who returned from Leiden University, as well as Shigeki Nishimura and Koji Sugi, were all members of the Meirokusha. In this way, I think statistics became a huge boom centered around the people of the Meirokusha. Not only Fukuzawa, but all of them noticed the appeal of statistics and worked on it.

I believe Koji Sugi played an extremely large role in creating Japan's so-called official or government statistics.

Sugi was not just interested in statistics; he was the first person to strongly realize that they must absolutely be implemented, as a maker of statistics—that is, to create statistics and use those created statistics to advance national administration. I believe it is thanks to him that today's Japanese statistics, such as industrial statistics, and Japan's statistical organizations were created.

At the end of the Tokugawa period, Koji Sugi belonged to the Bansho Shirabesho (Institute for the Study of Barbarian Books) along with Amane Nishi, Mamichi Tsuda, and Hiroyuki Kato. The Bansho Shirabesho was an academic institution established by the Tokugawa government for the purpose of investigating Western affairs and providing Western education, and many excellent Rangaku and Western scholars were appointed there. Sugi recalled those days in his autobiography as follows.

According to Sugi, he read the Dutch newspaper "Rotterdamsche Courant" and learned that there was something called statistics in Europe, which he found interesting. Then Nishi and Tsuda returned from their studies in the Netherlands and showed him the Dutch statistics lecture notes they had learned from Leiden University Professor Vissering. Sugi said that upon reading them, he immediately delved deep into statistics.

Vissering is known in Japan as a legal scholar, but he was actually a leading statistician and economist in the Netherlands at the time. Influenced by Quetelet's perfection of statistics and the establishment of a government statistical bureau in neighboring Belgium, there was a growing movement in the Netherlands to create a politically neutral government statistical bureau. Vissering was at the core of that activity.

The lecture notes from Vissering's statistics lectures were later translated by Tsuda in 1874 (Meiji 7), but Koji Sugi had already encountered the original Dutch manuscript through Nishi and Tsuda during the late Edo period. Having thus come to believe that Japan also needed a statistical bureau, Sugi led the creation of the Statistics Section in the Meiji era.

Shigenobu Okuma also had a very deep connection with statistics, to the extent that he was called the "Count of Statistics."

There is a letter from Fukuzawa to Okuma in 1879 (Meiji 12). In it, Fukuzawa introduces 13 Keio University alumni as a "statistics circle." Furthermore, he recommends three people, including Koji Sugi and Ayatoshi Kure, as "people for the Statistics Bureau." That letter was probably around the time when Fukuzawa and Okuma became very close through statistics.

One pipe connecting Fukuzawa and Okuma was the human exchange involving the founding of the Board of Statistics (1881).

However, it should be noted that while Koji Sugi's name appears in Fukuzawa's letters, Sugi was already working hard at the time in the Seihyo (Political Tables) Section of the Dajokan (Grand Council of State) to realize independent government statistics. On the other hand, a "Statistics Bureau" was also established within the Ministry of Finance, where Okuma served as the Minister of Finance, and statistical administration began to diverge within the Meiji government.

In other words, while there was human exchange through statistics among them, behind it there also existed a tug-of-war and rivalry over statistical administration within the government.

A period was put to this conflict in May 1881 with the establishment of the Dajokan Board of Statistics by Councilor Shigenobu Okuma. Through this, Sugi's Seihyo Section was subsumed and dissolved into the Board of Statistics.

At this time, the Keio University group—including Fumio Yano, Yukio Ozaki, Tsuyoshi Inukai, and Takuzo Ushiba—who were sent in upon Fukuzawa's recommendation, worked as Okuma's right-hand men.

Beyond the objective of enhancing government statistics, it is thought that there was a political alliance and joint struggle between Okuma and Fukuzawa aimed at the early establishment of a national diet. This developed into the Political Crisis of 1881.

In 1871, the Seihyo Section was created in the Dajokan, and Koji Sugi went there. On the other hand, at the Ministry of Finance, Hirobumi Ito was involved with statistics. That side might have been led by people more like modern bureaucrats.

Was the Seihyo Section side led by the group that had been around since the Bansho Shirabesho (Institute for the Study of Barbarian Books)?

I believe so. Sugi and his colleagues thought it was necessary to establish a politically neutral central statistics bureau to form a modern state, and that the core of its role should be survey statistics centered on population surveys. In contrast, Okuma and others focused solely on creating operational statistics by gathering figures from various ministries. From Sugi's perspective, there was likely a strong sense that the role of a statistics bureau should not be limited to just that.

At that time, the terms "Seihyo" (Political Tables) and "Tokei" (Statistics) were indeed separate, and Koji Sugi published "Nihon Seihyo" (Japan Political Tables) in response to Fukuzawa's "Bankoku Seihyo" (International Political Tables).

I often hear that Sugi was very particular about the word "Seihyo" or "Statistics" itself, but it seems the word "Tokei" was actually used first by the Ministry of Finance.

There is also the argument that the way the word "Tokei" was used is an issue. In the past, there was a verb form "tokei-suru," which meant something similar to "to settle an account," used when summarizing something. The Statistics Division and Statistics Bureau established in the Ministry of Finance used it in this sense. I feel that the meaning of the word "Tokei" back then was not necessarily the same as the "statistics" or "statistical science" we imagine today.

For that reason, Koji Sugi likely used "Seihyo" from the standpoint that it was different from the "Tokei" used until then. There are also two ways to write "Seihyo": one using the characters for "Political Tables" and another using the characters for "Table-making," like the current Seihyo (Table-making) Section. Koji Sugi used both.

It is not very clear how Fukuzawa influenced the statistical organizations within the government. I have the impression that, at the very least, Okuma and Koji Sugi did not necessarily get along well within those organizations.

Regarding the establishment of the Board of Statistics, Okuma asked a man named Shigemasa Aihara, who is thought to have been Sugi's subordinate, to visit a man named Mayet, who worked at the Prussian Bureau of Statistics, and drafted the "Draft Statistics Ordinance" by imitating the Prussian model. Looking only at that, it seems as if the relationship between Okuma and Sugi was reasonably good.

However, as soon as the Board of Statistics was established, Sugi naturally expected to play a central role as an expert, but that was not the case. Instead, people like Yukio Ozaki and Tsuyoshi Inukai, who had little to do with statistics until then, ended up occupying the Board of Statistics. Despite being a statistics expert himself, Sugi was not given an important role within the Board.

This is likely why, when the Board of Statistics was reorganized into the "Cabinet Statistics Bureau" in 1885, key figures like Sugi resigned.

In fact, the Keio faction surrounding Okuma—Yano, Ozaki, and Inukai—recalled that their true purpose in serving at the Board of Statistics was to prepare for the early establishment of a national diet. They said Okuma's intention was to select talent from the private sector and bring them into the government to practice administrative affairs, as many government officials would be needed to explain state affairs once the diet opened.

Naturally, Sugi and the Seihyo Section group seem to have resented these moves. Sugi's disciple, Katsutake Kure, stated that regarding Yano, Ozaki, and Inukai, there were "many people who came from journalism and didn't understand what statistics were," and that for those like themselves who "considered statistics their life's work," it was "extremely disappointing."

It is quite difficult to determine what position Fukuzawa held and what role he played in this. Since he recommended graduates of Keio University, he must have had some involvement, but Fukuzawa's presence remains in the shadows and does not appear on the surface. This is one of the difficult problems when considering the Political Crisis of 1881.

Okuma may have had political motives around 1881, but in later years, in 1898, he said something to the effect of, "Statistics are extremely important in conducting politics. To advance national administration, the government should take proper statistics and conduct politics based on them." Okuma, as a politician, held ideas that connect to what is frequently called EBPM (Evidence-based Policy Making) today.

Looking at Okuma's long life as a politician, I think he can be evaluated as someone who, unlike Fukuzawa, highly recognized the importance of government and official statistics and put considerable effort into their development.

I mentioned earlier that Koji Sugi was treated coldly by Okuma. However, while the so-called Kambo Cabinet (1898) was very short-lived and Japanese history textbooks suggest it did nothing, Okuma did something very significant for statistical administration.

That was upgrading the Cabinet Statistics Section, which had been downgraded to a section during Hirobumi Ito's cabinet, back to a Statistics Bureau. That Statistics Bureau has survived as a "Bureau" through World War II to this day. This is a very large contribution that Okuma made to government statistics, particularly to the Statistics Bureau. While there may have been some political intention behind it, I believe the effect continues to this day.

The Board of Statistics was something Okuma considered to be on the level of a ministry or agency in today's terms, wasn't it? When I read Okuma's "Proposal Regarding the Establishment of the Board of Statistics," which I've often been shown at the Statistics Bureau, I think he was very conscious of something like what we now call EBPM.

That's true. However, Okuma may have had a stronger awareness as a user of statistics rather than a maker. Therefore, he might have thought that statistics were something that could be created simply by summarizing operational records.

Okuma himself advocated that only after the government creates "complete statistical tables" can it know the "current state of the nation" and judge the "merits and demerits of policies."

An interesting point related to that is the insurance system. Yukio Fukuzawa introduced Western insurance systems to Japan as a pioneer through works like "Guide to travel in the western world." On the other hand, it was Eiichi Shibusawa who founded Japan's first insurance company, Tokyo Marine Insurance Company. According to Shibusawa's recollections, Shibusawa and Fukuzawa played shogi at Shigenobu Okuma's house, and during the match, the three of them discussed the insurance system.

Needless to say, the insurance system is established and takes root based on statistical thinking. Fukuzawa, Shibusawa, and Okuma. The fact that they looked at the state of society with a statistical gaze beyond their individual positions and worked to create new systems such as insurance companies, banks, and the Statistics Bureau is extremely significant when considering the formation of modern Japan.

Next, I would like to move on to the topic of Fukuzawa's disciples and those around him.

As mentioned earlier regarding insurance, Taizo Abe, a Keio University alumni, founded Meiji Life Insurance. In this way, Fukuzawa had his disciples perform work that utilized statistics. Furthermore, when the Keio college was established in 1890, a "Statistics" course was set up in the department of political economy from the beginning, with figures like Katsutake Kure and Masao Yokoyama serving as lecturers.

Masao Yokoyama was a graduate of the Kyoritsu Statistics School founded by Sugi and was a person who worked hard to popularize statistics at the Statistic-sha and elsewhere. In that respect, I think there were many people around Fukuzawa and Keio University who were deeply involved in statistics.

I am also aware that Katsutake Kure, along with Koji Sugi, had a great influence on the census, but the source connecting to the people of the Meirokusha was the Bansho Shirabesho, which had a very large influence.

Katsutake Kure was the grandson of Genpo Mitsukuri, who was the chief professor at the Bansho Shirabesho. In that sense, the culture there likely had a major impact. And I feel that the discussion of how to use statistical methods in society, which we have been talking about, existed there continuously, leading to the emergence of very talented statisticians in the early Meiji period. I believe Kure was a disciple of Yukichi Fukuzawa while also being exposed to the traditional culture dating back to the Shogunate's Institute of Western Studies.

I heard that you, Mr. Tsubaki, are re-evaluating Katsutake Kure's side as a theorist.

Seven or eight years ago, I had the opportunity to work with suicide researchers to create Japan's "suicide statistics." I was told that suicide research was a taboo in Japan and there was almost no research on "suicide statistics" itself. However, upon investigation, I found a paper by Katsutake Kure titled exactly "Suicide Statistics."

It appeared in a 1899 work called "Statistical True Stories," where he classified suicides, considered cultural influences, and compared suicides across countries. Moreover, he created statistical tables for suicides in Japan over a five-year period starting from 1890, categorized by gender, age/class, and 17 different causes.

I was very impressed by this and read Kure's book "Theoretical Statistics." I had the impression that this was perhaps the best summary of what our predecessors in the early Meiji period learned in order to utilize statistics in society.

It is well-constructed and interesting even to read today, discussing which phenomena should be approached statistically, and how, when thinking about statistics, one must classify and consider the system of causes acting on the entire population and the system of causes specific to a certain group.

Katsutake Kure's name came up, and 2020 is the year of the 21st Population Census. Since the first was in 1920, this year marks exactly the "100th Anniversary of the Census." The first was during Prime Minister Takashi Hara's time. Both Koji Sugi and Katsutake Kure passed away without seeing its realization, but it was Sugi and Kure who worked very hard, insisting that a census must be conducted. Kure went on an inspection tour to the United States to investigate the reality of the census and worked hard for its realization.

I think that attitude also connects to Okuma, whom we mentioned earlier. If you ask why a census must be conducted, I think the idea is that first taking proper statistics and grasping the actual situation of the country is the beginning of everything.

As mentioned at the beginning, unfortunately, 100 years after the census, incidents where the importance of official statistics is neglected have occurred recently. In the modern era, I feel we should once again look at the passion Sugi and Kure had for the census and use it as an opportunity to recognize the importance of official statistics.

Mr. Saigo, what are your thoughts from your position of being involved in official statistics?

There is no doubt that the creation of official statistics cannot proceed in the same way as before.

In other words, until now, taking statistics meant that the state did everything. At least until now, official and government statistics have had an aspect of proceeding from a "top-down perspective," where the rulers take the statistics.

However, currently, it is becoming difficult to create various forms of official statistics through the method of "rulers taking statistics" alone. That is, the cooperation of those providing the data is becoming more difficult in that form.

On the other hand, the types and structures of required statistics are becoming increasingly complex in line with scientific progress. If we are to continue creating official statistics in the future under such circumstances, the creators must also adapt to the reality of needs—for example, by allowing internet responses for the census or creating accurate statistics while protecting privacy.

What I noticed is the word "Kokusei" (state of the nation). In the original term "Population census," the word "nation" or "state" does not appear anywhere. According to Professor Masahiro Sato's book "The Census and Modern Japan," when the census was implemented in 1920, statisticians at the time deliberately used the term "Kokusei"—which evokes the investigation of the country's situation, power, and national wealth—to persuade politicians and secure a national budget.

And this word "Kokusei" had been used since the early Meiji period as a translation for "statistics," along with "hyoki," "seihyo," and "tokei."

However, Mr. Saigo just mentioned that official statistics have reached a turning point. For 100 years, and even from the starting point of modern state formation 150 years ago, the "Census" has had the aspect of knowledge related to the "situation" and "power" of the "state." If the nature of the state and the shape of the country themselves are reaching a turning point, how should we think about this going forward?

On the other hand, if we return once more to that starting point, the Meiji predecessors, including Koji Sugi, strongly argued that to create a new state, it was necessary to create complete statistical tables, conduct fair surveys from a politically neutral standpoint, and widely publish the results to the citizens. They all held high ideals and passion, appealing that statistics were the key to building a modern state.

Today, when the reliability of Japanese government statistics is wavering, the words of those who built the foundation of the modern state resonate deeply.

The fact that the Meiji predecessors created statistics to this extent means they must have gathered data with tremendous effort compared to now. Moreover, I believe Sugi and Kure were thinking about what policies to implement with that data.

100 years after the census, in an era of data science and big data, we need to clarify once again what exactly can be done with this data. We need to make clear how we use the census and official statistics and what policies we derive from them. Conversely, I believe this is a chance to further strengthen the wisdom that people since the Meirokusha era possessed.

Mr. Tsubaki, you are also knowledgeable about the connection between Natsume Soseki and statistics. Could you speak a little about that?

Of course, Soseki was not a statistician or anything of the sort, but he read Karl Pearson's "The Grammar of Science" thoroughly and, during his time studying in London, resolved to "turn literary criticism into a science."

Looking at his notebooks from his London days, he wrote various remarkable things like, "The usefulness of a hypothesis is proportional to the probability that the hypothesis is valid," and the word "data" appears many times.

He believed that if one piled up solid facts, the act of designing literature or literary criticism itself would become a kind of science. Moreover, he also criticized Karl Pearson, pointing out that while Pearson created a wonderful system from the standpoint of recognizing facts, if one considers this from the aspect of art, the purpose of art is not necessarily to establish order and reduce noise.

I think Soseki was a person who gave a very interesting influence to Japan just by introducing "The Grammar of Science" to Japan and to his disciples like Akitsugu Terada.

That is likely a result of the charm of statistical science; it's one expression of how various people, whether politicians or literary figures, noticed the charm that statistics possess.

I suppose so. Soseki was from a slightly later era than the predecessors mentioned earlier, but I feel that passion strongly.

I believe we must not let this current statistics boom end as just a boom. I would like to hear your thoughts on the future of statistics, statistical science, and data science.

I mentioned earlier that it has become impossible to take government statistics in the same way as before, but conversely, from the standpoint of users who use statistics, the development of technology is remarkable. For example, the level of papers I wrote as a student is completely different from the papers students are writing now. One factor is that the available data has increased, and the available technology is completely different from the past.

For example, when I was an undergraduate student, it was nearly impossible to perform a statistical analysis of musical pieces, but today's students can process audio so it can be data-analyzed, use image processing, and perform the analysis they want to do in about six months. So we have entered an era where anyone can analyze quite difficult data. However, I feel that not many people have fully recognized this yet.

If we recognize that data, or statistics, are extremely useful for our lives, we will recognize that such data is very important for the government to decide the way national administration should be, for example. By increasing such awareness, it might become easier to collect the data that the country needs, or that we as citizens need. I hope we can do something about this in the field of statistical education, including at universities.

In terms of statistical education, the "AI Strategy 2019" announced by the Cabinet Office aims to have all university students, regardless of whether they are in the humanities or sciences, acquire a standard curriculum in data science by 2025.

In the coming era, EBPM—discussions based on data and evidence—will be necessary in any field. Also, within massive amounts of big data, it is possible to lead to wrong conclusions if one intends to, so the ability to see through that and correctly interpret things is required.

This connects to Fukuzawa in terms of a scientific way of looking at things. It is not enough for a few statisticians to handle statistics as in the past; it is important for all citizens to have a statistical perspective. For that reason, we must put even more effort into statistical education.

Since I examine statistical issues from the perspective of the history of political thought, I would definitely like students studying statistics today to look at it from a historical perspective at least once. Through that, I hope they will re-recognize the importance of statistics while simultaneously developing a perspective that questions its self-evidence—asking if statistics are truly omnipotent.

As we have discussed today, the foundation of modern statistics was built in the 19th century and was deeply connected to the formation of modernity. Therefore, at that time, both in the West and in Japan, there existed the fundamental question: "What is statistics?"

Natsume Soseki was mentioned earlier, and in terms of literature, Dostoevsky states the following in "Notes from Underground": "As far as I know, you," in representing human interests and happiness, "take average values from statistical tables and economic formulas." Anyone who goes against that is called an "obstinate anti-enlightenment thinker." "This, gentlemen, is our 19th century, in which Buckle also lived."

The 19th century, symbolized by Buckle, which uses statistical tables to show happiness. This is a critique from the side of a literary figure, Dostoevsky, asking if that is true happiness.

This overlaps with the problem Fukuzawa faced in "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization." Can Asia truly escape from the stagnation theory of natural determinism? What is true civilization? While valuing "statistics," Fukuzawa also touched upon the problems beyond them and pondered deeply.

In the modern age where data science and AI technology have highly developed, is looking at these intellectual challenges that existed at the starting point of history merely the nonsense of an "obstinate anti-enlightenment thinker"? This is a problem I would definitely like young people who will study statistics to think about at least once.

Currently, statistics has become a cross-disciplinary liberal art, a typical example of a scientific method, and we are in an era where it should be properly acquired between elementary school and higher education.

Until now, data was a prize beyond reach, and taking data itself was a huge cost. In such an era, it was difficult for ordinary people to create statistics, but now we are in an era where that is possible, and the tools to analyze it have also advanced greatly. Recently, there are even circles where high school students study machine learning. In that sense, I think we have entered a very good era.

However, while it is a cross-disciplinary liberal art, there is another problem: "To what end does statistics serve?" For some, it will be policy. Also, statistics contributes to various academic fields such as medical sciences. Furthermore, it can be a tool to advance the expertise and knowledge of the user. However, conversely, there is a fear that statistics could dominate humans and take the form of "do it with this conclusion."

Currently, expectations for AI and statistics are too high, so I think we must once again firmly establish that they are ultimately tools to advance our knowledge and a cross-disciplinary liberal art.

Today, we looked back 150 years from the modern statistics boom, and I was able to re-recognize that statistics has many different aspects. While noticing this, people of the Meiji era like Fukuzawa tried to incorporate statistics and statistical science. I believe those efforts have led to the present day.

I believe statistical science and data science will play an increasingly important role in the world. As Mr. Okubo said, it is important not to forget the historical perspective and for many citizens to share a statistical perspective and the importance of statistics as part of their liberal arts education.

Thank you very much for today.