Timeline for What were the main statistical contributions of Ronald Fisher?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2018 at 3:55 | vote | accept | WCMC | ||
| Nov 21, 2017 at 18:21 | comment | added | Jessica Burnett | Just stumbled on this documentary (4 part series) on RA Fisher | |
| Nov 13, 2017 at 21:52 | comment | added | Sextus Empiricus | @aksakal, given the mentioned background, Dawkins and Hald, maybe the OP wanted to know what makes the contributions so great. The OP is looking for a qualification of the contributions as well? | |
| Nov 13, 2017 at 20:51 | comment | added | Aksakal | Something's missing in the context of the question. Any number of Google hits on Fisher's name would bring up a long list of his contributions. Somehow this is not satisfactory to OP. He's looking for something else. What is it? | |
| S Nov 13, 2017 at 20:44 | history | bounty ended | amoeba | ||
| S Nov 13, 2017 at 20:44 | history | notice removed | amoeba | ||
| Nov 13, 2017 at 13:19 | comment | added | Tim | @amoeba because this kind of questions have tendency to evolve into threads of the first kind that you mentioned. Moreover, there is no single "best" answer and it encourages list-like answers. I'd argue to make it a community wiki, but this is just my oppinion. | |
| Nov 13, 2017 at 13:13 | comment | added | amoeba | @Tim Hmm. I disagree for the reasons stated in my previous comment. This is not asking for many answers with one of the Fisher's contribution per answer. It's asking what the contributions were, and a good answer would list and explain main contributions and could suffice on its own. Why should this be CW? | |
| Nov 13, 2017 at 12:59 | comment | added | Tim | In my oppinion this should be a community wiki. | |
| Nov 13, 2017 at 12:50 | answer | added | Sextus Empiricus | timeline score: 19 | |
| Nov 12, 2017 at 11:00 | comment | added | amoeba | I disagree @Firebug. CW are questions that cannot in principle have an objectively "best" accepted answer (i.e. they ask for a list of things). Here I can perfectly well imagine a good comprehensive answer (that could be accepted). It does not look like we are going to get one though. | |
| Nov 12, 2017 at 10:43 | comment | added | Firebug | @amoeba it's on topic, but it's also either community-wiki or too broad. | |
| Nov 9, 2017 at 20:32 | comment | added | Matthew Drury | Fair point. I suppose I'm just coming down on the other side of that line: we have a history tag for historical reasons, but now there is a better place for those questions. | |
| Nov 9, 2017 at 20:31 | comment | added | amoeba | @MatthewDrury We have a relatively popular [history] tag. History questions are on-topic on our site. If something is on topic here, we should IMHO not migrate it away even if it's on-topic somewhere else too. | |
| Nov 9, 2017 at 20:29 | comment | added | amoeba | @MartijnWeterings Consider posting an answer with these links. Perhaps you could briefly list main points that Efron is giving in that paper; or maybe provide some quotes from there. You could make your answer "CommunityWiki" (even though I don't think this is necessary!) if you feel like this answer would then not "belong" to you but rather to Efron. I will have to award a 100 bounty to somebody in this thread and I'd much rather it went for a good answer. Even if this answer is basically "See Efron's paper, and that's what he is saying". | |
| Nov 9, 2017 at 19:53 | comment | added | Matthew Drury | I would also vote to migrate to HSM. Great question though. | |
| Nov 9, 2017 at 18:45 | answer | added | Jessica Burnett | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 7, 2017 at 4:50 | comment | added | Sextus Empiricus | I agree, 'nice question', but maybe not here. Fisher's work's already been collected into a pretty volume Contributions to Mathematical Statistics that is easily obtained from any second-hand books shop. For a book-review see: jstor.org/stable/2332332 I am personally not capable to add better words and can only refer to Efron jstor.org/stable/2676745 What would indeed be interesting and adding information is a view from historians. (or philosophers since the different statistics views is a though question and I actually do not really get it, ie. I use all of them) | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 9:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/927472899312832512 | ||
| S Nov 6, 2017 at 8:30 | history | bounty started | amoeba | ||
| S Nov 6, 2017 at 8:30 | history | notice added | amoeba | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Nov 6, 2017 at 8:26 | history | edited | amoeba |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 24, 2017 at 17:38 | history | edited | kjetil b halvorsen♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 21, 2016 at 10:52 | history | reopened | Peter Flom | ||
| Mar 21, 2016 at 10:07 | comment | added | gung - Reinstate Monica | I don't think the potentially 'opinion-based' nature of this question is the issue. I agree with @AntoniParellada: If this question doesn't belong on the History of Science and Mathematics SE site, it's not clear what would. We owe it to our SE colleagues to migrate it there. The original framing was perfectly fine. | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 9:57 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Mar 21, 2016 at 10:52 | |||||
| Mar 21, 2016 at 9:38 | history | edited | Silverfish | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
try to make question more neutral
|
| Mar 20, 2016 at 7:28 | history | closed |
Xi'an Christoph Hanck gung - Reinstate Monica Andy John |
Opinion-based | |
| Mar 19, 2016 at 3:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 20, 2016 at 7:28 | |||||
| Mar 13, 2016 at 0:25 | history | edited | Silverfish |
add history tag
|
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 0:25 | comment | added | Silverfish | @Antoni I think at some point in the future, as HSM continues to grow and thrive, HSM might become a better home for statistical history questions. But there's such a strong expertise base on CV, with many users who have a real interest in historical aspects, that CV is arguably the better place for now. (I think in the long run, CV will likely continue to be the better place for the more "conceptual" history questions.) | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 23:46 | comment | added | Wayne | Considering how Bayesian statistics -- which Fisher loathed -- is gaining ground, we might say we're in a post-modern statistical era. The Wikipedia page even lists his fiducial inference as if it were a success when it was a failure. | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 23:32 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 13, 2016 at 2:19 | |||||
| Mar 12, 2016 at 23:31 | comment | added | Antoni Parellada | This would be a great post for HSM. | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 23:29 | history | edited | Glen_b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
title correction, name wikipedia properly (it's *a* wiki of thousands)
|
| Mar 12, 2016 at 23:01 | answer | added | kjetil b halvorsen♦ | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 22:59 | comment | added | WCMC | yes. p value (or a small portion of hypothesis test) and meta analysis. | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 22:53 | comment | added | Greenparker | Did you read this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher#Academic_career | |
| Mar 12, 2016 at 22:51 | history | asked | WCMC | CC BY-SA 3.0 |