Comment by dwattttt
2 days ago
> But then this just pushes the question back one step: How could this brilliant statistician be so naive?
I would suggest that if they're taking money to spout bad science, they're not actually brilliant. So I would suggest this pushes the question back yet further, why do we (still?) think he was brilliant?
The guy seems like kinda a dick. But here's what Wikipedia says Fisher is known for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher
Fisher's exact test; Fisher's inequality; Fisher's principle; Fisher's geometric model; Fisher's Iris data set; Fisher's linear discriminant; Fisher's equation; Fisher information; Fisher's method; Fisherian runaway; Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection; Fisher's noncentral hypergeometric distribution; Fisher's z-distribution; Fisher transformation; Fisher consistency; F-distribution; F-test; Fisher–Tippett distribution; Fisher–Tippett–Gnedenko theorem; Fisher–Yates shuffle; Fisher–Race blood group system; Behrens–Fisher problem; Cornish–Fisher expansion; von Mises–Fisher distribution; family allowance; Wright–Fisher model; Ancillary statistic; Fiducial inference; Intraclass correlation; Infinitesimal model; Inverse probability; Lady tasting tea; Null hypothesis; Maximum likelihood estimation; Neutral theory of molecular evolution; Particulate inheritance; p-value; Random effects model; Relative species abundance; Reproductive value; Sexy son hypothesis; Sufficient statistic; Analysis of variance; Variance
That's a pretty long list of achievements.
Look him up, perhaps. If you’re a geek, nontrivial parts of your profession wouldn’t be possible without him.
I do not subscribe to the "great men" theory of history. Independent rediscovery has happened over and over again. If not him, someone else would have come about with the same discoveries.
It's fine to question that "great men" are the prime movers of history. But you're taking it too far by saying something like "all discoveries would have been made by someone else so individuals get no credit". First, that's obviously not true -- we can't know that every bit of knowledge would have been discovered by someone else. Second, it's beside the point -- the discoveries weren't made by someone else.
"Great men" vs. "impersonal historical process" is one of those dichotomies that will never be resolved. If you find yourself at either extreme, you're making an obvious error. Find a comfortable place somewhere in the middle.
So invention itself is not laudable because it’s inevitable? That’s an odd attitude. Newton’s laws of motion would have been discovered by someone, somewhere, so there’s no point in remembering and praising Newton for his work? It’s nihilistic.
1 reply →
> So I would suggest this pushes the question back yet further, why do we (still?) think he was brilliant?
Because he (mostly single-handedly) invented modern statistics.
Gelman comes down pretty hard on Fisher here but he doesn't question his brilliance.
Why? Why do people insist that brilliance means some moral purity? What makes brilliance and greed impossible together?
You can be brilliant and greedy. The point at which you're making statements based on your greed rather than your brilliance, that's the line we stop saying they're brilliant.