Most statisticians are great professionals, working on various data-intensive projects, and they don't care about their job title. You can say the same about data scientists, and me in particular. However, there is a small cluster of statisticians - Andrew Gelman seems to be their leader and their only influencer - who have been challenging us, even publicly insulting us recently.
So my criticism here applies only to this small clique of practitioners, most of them being Ph,D. statisticians who have worked for the same non-profit organizations for a long long time, and with limited experience and exposure to the real world. Some great statisticians such as Diego Kuonen, while strongly and justly defending statistical science, don't belong to that clique.
This incident started a few months ago, when these die-hard statisticians claimed that we, data scientists, know nothing about statistics, and that they know everything. Their science is an arcane mix of thousands of non-unified techniques that are kept almost secret, so as they can continue doing their costly man-made analyses with no regard to ROI. Many consider applied statistics as a plague.
They even claimed that I do not know anything about statistics. That was the starting point. I acknowledged that indeed, I did not know anything, because my definition of statistical science is totally different from theirs: it's all about automation, model-free predictions, and big data applications, safe to use by the non-initiated..
Now they've changed their mind, and they claim that actually, what I do is statistical science. Yet their old statistics is a small portion of data science: business hacking, domain expertise, machine learning, data engineering, new statistics and core data science being the main components of what I do. But they even went as far as to say that my model-free confidence intervals were wrong, when it was proved to be equivalent to the old statistical method. Likewise, they claimed that my Jackknife regression was an old technique developed by Bradley Efron. Yet it has nothing to do with Efron nor re-sampling. Andrew Gelman himself claimed that I stole ideas from his research (it is a classic syndrome for famous academic statisticians, they believe that they are the only ones having original ideas, and that anything remotely close to what they do is plagiarism).
What a bunch of arrogant, close-minded people! I don't even read Andrew Gelman's publications. They are disseminated to a very small audience in obscure journals that pretty much no mainstream people read, and it's written in convoluted English. I might sometimes re-invent statistics, but it is easier, faster, and better than wasting days looking after old publications and digesting / translating / adapting to modern data.
What these few statisticians don't understand is that these journals are no longer the outlet for many modern scientists, including me. Just compare my article on data videos with one published by a traditional scientist, in a top traditional journal, independently and at the same time. You will see that mine is far more useful, provide code to make much faster, longer videos, and is in essence, of superior quality. You may disagree, and you are welcome to say so in the comment section below. Not that I tried to submit and got rejected, I actually never send my material to these journals anymore. I no longer have time for this, nor to write unpaid book or peer-reviews. Their motto is publish or perish (and they must please their grantors, so innovation is dangerous for them), while my motto is bring value, make it simple.