Modelling populations: Pearson and Fisher on mendelism and biometry
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (1):39-68 (2002)
| Abstract | The debate between the Mendelians and the (largely Darwinian) biometricians has been referred to by R. A. Fisher as ‘one of the most needless controversies in the history of science’ and by David Hull as ‘an explicable embarrassment’. The literature on this topic consists mainly of explaining why the controversy occurred and what factors prevented it from being resolved. Regrettably, little or no mention is made of the issues that figured in its resolution. This paper deals with the latter topic and in doing so reorients the focus of the debate as one between Karl Pearson and R. A. Fisher rather than between the biometricians and the Mendelians. One reason for this reorientation is that Pearson's own work in 1904 and 1909 suggested that Mendelism and biometry could, to some extent, be made compatible, yet he remained steadfast in his rejection of Mendelism. The interesting question then is why Fisher, who was also a proponent of biometric methods, was able to synthesise the two traditions in a way that Pearson either could not or would not. My answer to this question involves an analysis of the ways in which different kinds of assumptions were used in modelling Mendelian populations. I argue that it is these assumptions, which lay behind the statistical techniques of Pearson and Fisher, that can be isolated as the source of Pearson's rejection of Mendelism and Fisher's success in the synthesis. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJacques Poitevineau & Bruno Lecoutre (1998). Some Statistical Misconceptions in Chow's Statistical Significance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):215-215.
A. G. Cock (1973). William Bateson, Mendelism and Biometry. Journal of the History of Biology 6 (1):1 - 36.
Davis Baird (1983). The Fisher/Pearson Chi-Squared Controversy: A Turning Point for Inductive Inference. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34 (2):105-118.
Margaret Morrison (2006). Unification, Explanation and Explaining Unity: The Fisher–Wright Controversy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):233-245.
Lester E. Krueger (1998). The Ego has Landed! The .05 Level of Statistical Significance is Soft (Fisher) Rather Than Hard (Neyman/Pearson). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):207-208.
Sahotra Sarkar (2004). Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the “Synthesis”. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1215-1226.
Sahotra Sarkar (2004). Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the "Synthesis". Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1215-1226.
Andrés Rivadulla (1991). Mathematical Statistics and Metastatistical Analysis. Erkenntnis 34 (2):211 - 236.
Johannes Lenhard (2006). Models and Statistical Inference: The Controversy Between Fisher and Neyman–Pearson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):69-91.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads14 ( #83,035 of 549,014 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,272 of 549,014 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
