Talk:Ronald Fisher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology. |
 |
|||||
| Mathematics grading: | B+ Class | High Importance | Field: Mathematicians | ||
 |
Ronald Fisher was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 23 June 2006 |
[edit] Fisher and Eugenics
I am just interested to know why any discussion about eugenics are not included in the biography or discussion of his book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. I think it is necessary to give a balanced view of the man, and the development of statistical genetics. I have always been interested in how 'hard' ideas like statistical genetics or evolution get (ab)used in developing social theories like eugenics or social darwinism. Would there be much protest if I tried an attempt to include one or two lines about this in his biography? --Frank.visser 10:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- No, this is an encyclopedia, and as long as it remained encyclopedi and followed the principle of NPOV, there should be no problem. Although Fisher was a genius, he was not a nice man. I think there is a whole chapter in a book about Fisher somewhere, I think the bio needs expanding to. In summary, be bold in editing pages, we can always revert and have a discussion as appropriate. THe present eugenics article is (IMHO) rubbish at the moment too. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
- Cool, I will dig up some sources and background information. I will try to keep it non-judgmental. He was a man of his times, and his views reflected the mores of a large part of (upper class) society.
--Frank.visser 14:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd be intersted in the source of the following statement: "Between 1929 and 1934 the Eugenics Society also campaigned hard for a law permitting sterilization on eugenic grounds. They believed that it should be entirely voluntary, and a right, not a punishment." --Chris Locke
- it is in the middle of p 197 of Box's R. A. Fisher, The Life of a Scientist. DonSiano 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fisher was more into positive eugenics than negative eugenics, i.e. he thought that those of good birth should have lots of children (needless to say, he followed this through!) but without the nasty reigning in of the breeding of the unwashed masses. But others notably Leonard Darwin were in favour of negative eugenics. — Dunc|☺ 10:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Extraordinarily talented"
As of the 19:17, 4 Nov 2004 revision, the first sentence calls Fisher "extraordinarily talented". In a neutral encyclopedia, I object to that description.
—Vespristiano 23:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
in this encyclopedia, do you think it is not neutral to write "Albert Einstein was extraordinarily talented"? Tomi 16:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think a sentence should be added that he was extremely biggoted too, in view of his eugenics pedigree. 213.5.28.153 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hes been said to be "extraordinarily talented" by his peers, not by Wiki editors alone. The Dawkins quote backs up that opinion held in the field. Fisher being biggoted in your opinion is subjective and not relavent in a neutral Wiki. If that opinion is to be posted it should be backed up by citations of his peers, making it an objective statement. Analysing eugentics does not make one a bigot, especially with opt-in eugentics. --Mikespenard 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fisher as a consultant for British Tobacco Industries ?
Is it correct that Fisher has worked as a consultant for the British Tobacco Industries. ?
Pleased give references.
- Fisher (who is dead) advocated that correlation does not imply causation in the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. In this he was later proved wrong, and despite the fact that he was paid (I think), I think it was sincerely held view which we now have the benefit of hindsight to look at. — Dunc|☺ 19:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
i think this should be mentioned in the main article, when someone is receiving a hand off from a tobaco co their "scientific" findings should be questioned and his objectivity is obviously compromised. I dislike the canonical tone of this article a lot, this is a major error in judgement and i don't know why the article should mention only the successes and not ther errors and faults. 213.5.28.153 07:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More info on the roots of modern Darwinism
The opening paragraph gives a Dawkins quote that he is the greatest of Darwins successors, but little is given to explain why. There should be more text explaining how Fishers ideas in The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection are the roots of modern evolutionary perspective i.e. gene selectionism and game theory applied to biology. With links to Hamilton, Dawkins and M.J.Smith. (I can provide quotes and citations if need be.)It should also be pointed out he was the first to frame the process of NS in mathematical terms, which solidified Mendelism, correcting Darwins mistakes on what was the driving force behind evolution(mutation or selection; Darwin believed in blending inheritance, which caused him to give presidence to mutation). I feel there is a lack of text on his relationship with Leonard Darwin as well. --Mikespenard 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this. Fisher was one of the three great founders of theoretical population genetics, often said to be the greatest of the three (Wright and Haldane being the others) and always agreed to be at least tied with Wright for first place. I understand we're dealing with the great figure of modern mathematical statistics here, but the population genetics and quantitative genetics work is surely worth more than three sentences! By the way, his book is great but much of his contribution was in papers, not just the book -- let's not fall into a Great Books fallacy here in which all great contributions are as books, not papers. I will try to add something on his contributions to population genetics. Felsenst
[edit] GA failed
Easy to modify reasons given are :
- Lead section should be expanded.
- References should be added to.
- Image of Fisher is a concern since it doesn't give Fair use rationale.
Lincher 16:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fisher's personality
I never met Fisher but have heard many times that although yes, he could be very loyal to people who he formed a good opinion of (as the article says), if he formed a bad opinion of you, you were in for a very hard time -- he could be very difficult, to put it mildly. He and Sewall Wright had a decades-long bitter dispute, and were not on speaking terms. And his dispute with Wright was not his only one. Here is what John Aldrich's page "A guide to RA Fisher" says: "Enemies: In his obituary piece in The Times Barnard wrote 'his devotion to scientific truth being literally passionate, he was an implacable enemy of those whom who judged guilty of propagating error." There were serious breaches with Karl Pearson, Sewall Wright and Jerzy Neyman amongst others.' The same obituary piece precedes this (according to the MacTutor biography of Fisher) with "But he also was the victim, as he himself recognised, of an uncontrollable temper;" I think there should be some way of making his tendency to fall into bitter dispute with other major figures clearer. Felsenst
[edit] Infobox
The following infobox has been removed from the Fisher page. Please discuss arguments for or against inclusion to reach a concensus. Here is what it looked like for reference:
| Born | 17 February 1890 East Finchley, London |
|---|---|
| Died | 29 July 1962 Adelaide, Australia |
| Residence | UK, Australia |
| Nationality | UK |
| Field | Mathematician |
| Institution | Rothamsted Experimental Station, University College London, Cambridge University, CSIRO |
| Alma mater | Cambridge University |
| Academic advisor | Sir James Jeans and F.J.M. Stratton |
| Notable students | Anthony Edwards, C. R. Rao |
| Known for | Maximum likelihood, Fisher information |
| Notable prizes | Royal Medal (1938), Copley Medal (1955) |
| Religion | Church of England |
bunix 13:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is really badly executed. Have you read the article because his achievements two achievements listed are scratching the surface?
- Secondly, do you think you are really going to fit all of Fisher's achievements, pupils, children, etc in the box?
- Thirdly, Wikipedia has a very simple (really an overly simple) database structure. It is not suited to carrying information like this. In other words, KISS principle. — Dunc|☺ 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dunc, Thank you for your comments. (1) Yes I am well aware of his acheivements and use many of them in a professional context. As wiki is collaborative, I deliberately didn't put all his achievements etc in the box. I leave that up to the evolutionary process of successive editors...that way a consensus of the important essence will emerge. (2) Does he have more than two students? I would be interested in hearing the source of your information. If he has more, then the idea is to only list the important ones. (3) Please explain why the database structure is more complicated than the many of the other infoboxes on the wikipedia, such as: [1]. Also if you can point me to a wiki policy or info page that discusses its database structure and what the prefered wiki way is, I would like to read up on it. Best regards. bunix 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- It seems a resolution has been reached on my Talk page with a message from Dunc. So in view of this, I am now putting the box back as of now, given there were no comments from anyone else.bunix 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Erdos Number
I propose that we delete the part stating his Erdos number, as it is not particularly relevant to a biography, except perhaps Erdos' biography. If we follow this as an example, we would have to state all the scientist's Erdos numbers, which is a bit pointless Delmet 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I second the motion. For statisticians, it would be more sensible to define a Fisher number. I believe that Archimedes and Gauss did not co-author any papers with Erdős, and who remembers them now? EdJohnston 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all Erdos numbers for people who died before the concept was invented. --Salix alba (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Pull quotes' seem out of place at beginning of article
In this diff [2] an editor added the cquote template for these two opening quotes. While this seems a bit more readable than the previous version, the giant blue quote marks are a reminder that this template is most often recommended for 'pull-quotes' that are used by publishers in sidebars, or whatever the correct term is. This aspect has recently been criticized [3] and in fact, the whole cquote template was proposed for deletion in December. If no better solution can be found, I'd prefer to see blockquote tags instead. EdJohnston 16:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Population genetics material needs reworking
I have expanded the paragraph on his contributions to theoretical population genetics a bit. But as his contributions to that field were spread over many decades, it is a bit unsatisfactory to have it all in the section on his Early Professional Years. Also, the whole section on his book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection gives the misleading impression that his contributions to genetics and evolution were mostly through that book. As he wrote many classic papers in the area, this is seems to be a case of the Great Books Fallacy (that scientists publish mostly by writing books). As his work divides into two great themes -- statistics and genetics -- wouldn't it be better to separate these rather than interlace them uncomfortably by describing his contributions in temporal order? Felsenst 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
