Dear Doug, As I recall, according to Stigler, yes -- he wasn't the first to formulate Stigler's law of eponymy (but I don't recall to whom he attributed it).
Regards, John On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:17:59 -0600 "Douglas Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On 3/3/2008 9:10 AM, Rogers, James A [PGRD Groton] wrote: > > > As someone of partly French heritage, I would also ask how this > > > distribution came to be called "Gaussian". It seems very unfair > to de > > > Moivre, who discovered the distribution at least half a century > earlier. > > > :-) > > > > Just an example of Stigler's Law. > > Taking this to a whole new level of "off topic", I wonder if > Stigler's > Law is self-referential? That is, should Stigler's Law more > correctly > be attributed to someone else? > > > > On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:33 AM, (Ted Harding) wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Folks, > > >> Apologies to anyone who'd prefer not to see this query > > >> on this list; but I'm asking because it is probably the > > >> forum where I'm most likely to get a good answer! > > >> > > >> I'm interested in the provenance of the name "normal > > >> distribution" (for what I'd really prefer to call the > > >> "Gaussian" distribution). > > >> > > >> According to Wikipedia, "The name "normal distribution" > > >> was coined independently by Charles S. Peirce, Francis > > >> Galton and Wilhelm Lexis around 1875." > > >> > > >> So be it, if that was the case -- but I would like to > > >> know why they chose the name "normal": what did they > > >> intend to convey? > > >> > > >> As background: I'm reflecting a bit on the usage in > > >> statistics of "everyday language" as techincal terms, > > >> as in "significantly different". This, for instance, > > >> is likely to be misunderstood by the general publidc > > >> when they encounter statements in the media. > > >> > > >> Likewise, "normally distributed" would probably be > > >> interpreted as "distributed in the way one would > > >> normally expect" or, perhaps, "there was nothing > > >> unusual about the distribution." > > >> > > >> Comments welcome! > > >> With thanks, > > >> Ted. > > >> > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > > > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible > code. > > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. -------------------------------- John Fox, Professor Department of Sociology McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.