This might be better informed by the history statistics which can place much of today’s statistics in astronomy starting with Laplace, Gauss and others in the 1800s (e.g. A history of mathematical statistics from 1750 to 1930 Anders Hald or even the history section in my thesis https://phaneron0.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/thesisreprint.pdf .)

Now, this statistical work in astronomy was summarized in a book by Airy and we are fairly sure Fisher studied that if not a similar one.

Now this on the web “Awarded a Wollaston studentship, he continued his studies at Cambridge under Stratton on the theory of errors reading Airy’s manual the Theory of Errors”

But I got questioned on that reference I found (which is still on line http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fisher.html ) but I never received a reply to my request for verification of that even though my request was acknowledged.

Very likely is true, but I believe Stigler told me it was unlikely there was any documentation.

The same is true about Fisher reading Peirce (hey he published Illustrations in a popular journal at the time) but there unlikely was any documentation.

So I would agree that Fisher was (forced to be) an outside but certainly not a new comer to statistics or philosophy of science.

Keith O’Rourke

]]>On, a different topic, I’d like to inform you about our summer seminar https://summerseminarphilstat.com/

]]>Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic” —

☞ C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic”>

But he uses *formal* here in a sense roughly meaning the same thing as *normative*, as we can tell from statements he makes elsewhere.

2 is consistency: if it’s provable, it’s valid ]]>