Wikipedia says: Stigler attributes the discovery of Stigler's Law to Robert K. Merton (which makes the law self-referencing).
(Working as a historian of science he should have proceeded to name the law Merton's law only to find out later that actually someone had discovered it even earlier.) Ingmar [edit] On 3 Mar 2008, at 19:17, Douglas Bates 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. Ingmar Visser Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam Roetersstraat 15 1018 WB Amsterdam The Netherlands t: +31-20-5256723 [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ 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.
