Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (4):475-485 (2011)
|Abstract||There are two motivations commonly ascribed to historical actors for taking up statistics: to reduce complicated data to a mean value (e.g., Quetelet), and to take account of diversity (e.g., Galton). Different motivations will, it is assumed, lead to different methodological decisions in the practice of the statistical sciences. Karl Pearson and W. F. R. Weldon are generally seen as following directly in Galton’s footsteps. I argue for two related theses in light of this standard interpretation, based on a reading of several sources in which Weldon, independently of Pearson, reflects on his own motivations. First, while Pearson does approach statistics from this "Galtonian" perspective, he is, consistent with his positivist philosophy of science, utilizing statistics to simplify the highly variable data of biology. Weldon, on the other hand, is brought to statistics by a rich empiricism and a desire to preserve the diversity of biological data. Secondly, we have here a counterexample to the claim that divergence in motivation will lead to a corresponding separation in methodology. Pearson and Weldon, despite embracing biometry for different reasons, settled on precisely the same set of statistical tools for the investigation of evolution.|
|Keywords||biometry Mendelism Karl Pearson positivism statistics W. F. R. Weldon|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Margaret Morrison (2002). Modelling Populations: Pearson and Fisher on Mendelism and Biometry. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (1):39-68.
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.
Andrés Rivadulla (1991). Mathematical Statistics and Metastatistical Analysis. Erkenntnis 34 (2):211 - 236.
Ian Hacking (1981). Karl Pearson's History of Statistics. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32 (2):177-183.
Ian Hacking (1981). Review: Karl Pearson's History of Statistics. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32 (2):177 - 183.
Deborah G. Mayo (1992). Did Pearson Reject the Neyman-Pearson Philosophy of Statistics? Synthese 90 (2):233 - 262.
Karl Pearson (1957/2004). The Grammar of Science. Dover Publications.
Deborah G. Mayo (1982). On After-Trial Criticisms of Neyman-Pearson Theory of Statistics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:145 - 158.
Robert Northcott (2005). Pearson's Wrong Turning: Against Statistical Measures of Causal Efficacy. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):900-912.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (1994). Of Nulls and Norms. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:280 - 290.
James Tabery (2004). The "Evolutionary Synthesis" of George Udny Yule. Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1):73 - 101.
Deborah G. Mayo (1983). An Objective Theory of Statistical Testing. Synthese 57 (3):297 - 340.
Added to index2011-08-19
Total downloads35 ( #39,222 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #7,643 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?