R.A.FISHER: Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference

In honor of R.A. Fisher’s birthday this week (Feb 17), in a year that will mark 50 years since his death, we will post the “Triad” exchange between  Fisher, Pearson and Neyman, and other guest contributions*

by Sir Ronald Fisher (1955)


The attempt to reinterpret the common tests of significance used in scientific research as though they constituted some kind of  acceptance procedure and led to “decisions” in Wald’s sense, originated in several misapprehensions and has led, apparently, to several more.

The three phrases examined here, with a view to elucidating they fallacies they embody, are:

  1. “Repeated sampling from the same population”,
  2. Errors of the “second kind”,
  3. “Inductive behavior”.

Mathematicians without personal contact with the Natural Sciences have often been misled by such phrases. The errors to which they lead are not only numerical.


*If you wish to contribute something in connection to Fisher, send to error@vt.edu

Categories: Statistics | Tags: , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Post navigation

6 thoughts on “R.A.FISHER: Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference

  1. Jean

    I think your tribute is spot-on for in the words of R. A. Fisher:

    “The History of Science has suffered greatly from the use by teachers of second-hand material, and the consequent obliteration of the circumstances and the intellectual atmosphere in which the great discoveries of the past were made. A first-hand study is always instructive, and often … full of surprises.”
    R.A. Fisher, 1955
    (p. 6, Experiments in plant hybridisation / G. Mendel. Edinburgh : Oliver & Boyd, 1965)

    Seeing the original “Triad” (Fisher, Pearson, Neyman) posted on the blog was liking seeing an old friend! and reminded me of the fun we had at the PHORS reading groups when I was a graduate student at VT.

  2. Pingback: Guest Blogger. Aris Spanos: The Enduring Legacy of R. A. Fisher « Error Statistics Philosophy

  3. Hmm, well it would have been interesting to see what teaching Fisherian, and Neyman – Pearson statistics would have looked like, teaching from “first-hand” material. Had the latter methodology not been cleaned up in texts so as to appear within a decision-theoretical framework, I think, it would have been better. But, on the other hand, they could have objected, I suppose.

  4. Pingback: Statistical Theater of the Absurd: “Stat on a Hot Tin Roof”? (Rejected Post Feb 20) « Error Statistics Philosophy

  5. Pingback: That Promissory Note From Lehmann’s Letter; Schmidt to Speak « Error Statistics Philosophy

  6. Pingback: E.S. Pearson: “Ideas came into my head as I sat on a gate overlooking an experimental blackcurrant plot” | Error Statistics Philosophy

I welcome constructive comments that are of relevance to the post and the discussion, and discourage detours into irrelevant topics, however interesting, or unconstructive declarations that "you (or they) are just all wrong". If you want to correct or remove a comment, send me an e-mail. If readers have already replied to the comment, you may be asked to replace it to retain comprehension.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: