|Abstract||In 1936 R.A.Fisher asked the pointed question, "Has Mendel's Work Been Rediscovered?" The query was intended to open for discussion whether someone altered the data in Gregor Mendel's classic 1866 research report on the garden pea, "Experiments in Plant-Hybridization." Fisher concluded, reluctantly, that the statistical counts in Mendel's paper were doctored in order to create a better intuitive fit between Mendelian expected values and observed frequencies. That verdict remains the received view among statisticians, so I believe. Fisher's analysis is a tour de force of so-called "Goodness of Fit" statistical tests using c2 to calculate significance levels, i.e., P-values. In this presentation I attempt a defense of Mendel's report, based on several themes. (1) Mendel's experiments include some important sequential design features that Fisher ignores. (2) Fisher uses particular statistical techniques of Meta-analysis for pooling outcomes from different experiments. These methods are subject to critical debate. and (3) I speculate on a small modification to Mendelian theory that offers some relief from Fisher's harsh conclusion that Mendel's data are too good to be true.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
A. Zumkeller (1975). Johann Gregor Mendel. Augustinianum 15 (1/2):247-248.
Margaret Morrison (2002). Modelling Populations: Pearson and Fisher on Mendelism and Biometry. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (1):39-68.
Federico Di Trocchio (1991). Mendel's Experiments: A Reinterpretation. Journal of the History of Biology 24 (3):485 - 519.
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.
Philip Kitcher (2003). In Mendel's Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology. Oxford University Press.
Nancy S. Hall (2007). R. A. Fisher and His Advocacy of Randomization. Journal of the History of Biology 40 (2):295 - 325.
Kostas Kampourakis (2013). Mendel and the Path to Genetics: Portraying Science as a Social Process. Science and Education.
Raphael Falk & Sahotra Sarkar (1991). The Real Objective of Mendel's Paper: A Response to Monaghan and Corcos. Biology and Philosophy 6 (4):447-451.
Avital Pilpel (2007). Statistics is Not Enough: Revisiting Ronald A. Fisher's Critique (1936) of Mendel's Experimental Results (1866). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (3):618-626.
Floyd V. Monaghan & Alain F. Corcos (1990). The Real Objective of Mendel's Paper. Biology and Philosophy 5 (3):267-292.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #145,458 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?