In the reign of George III an inquiry was made by some revolutionary spirit whether, pens, ink and paper, slates and pencils being in existence, this obstinate adherence to an obsolete custom ought to be continued, and whether a change ought not be effected. All the red tape in the country grew redder at the bare mention of this bold and original conception, and it took until 1826 to get these sticks abolished. The sticks were housed in Westminster, and it would naturally occur to any intelligent person that nothing could be easier than to allow them to be carried away for firewood by the miserable people who lived in that neighborhood. However, they never had been useful, and official routine required that they should never be, and so the order went out that they were to be privately and confidentially burned. It came to pass that they were burned in a stove in the House of Lords.
Some statisticians are frank about viewing resampling as a frontal attack upon their own situations.
To be safe, he offered only the last session of the semester, when it would be too late for the students to raise pointed questions to him, and it would be after the course evaluation had been administered. The simple fact is that resampling devalues the knowledge of conventional mathematical statisticians, and especially the less competent ones. That, of course, is one of the core resistances to the resampling method. I have no objection to mathematicians teaching mathematics to those who wish to learn it, for purposes practical or esthetic. I do object to their forcing mathematical methods upon people who need usable techniques and fundamental understanding of statistical inference, both of which are put out of people's reach with the formulaic approach.