[R] [OT] "normal" (as in "Guassian")

[roger koenker]

Yes, the sociologist Robert Merton.

url:    www.econ.uiuc.edu/~roger            Roger Koenker
email    rkoenker at uiuc.edu            Department of Economics
vox:     217-333-4558                University of Illinois
fax:       217-244-6678                Champaign, IL 61820


On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Douglas Bates wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Duncan Murdoch  
> <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
>> On 3/3/2008 9:10 AM, Rogers, James A [PGRD Groton] wrote:
>>> As someone of partly French heritage, I would also ask how this
>>> distribution came to be called "Gaussian". It seems very unfair to  
>>> de
>>> Moivre, who discovered the distribution at least half a century  
>>> earlier.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Just an example of Stigler's Law.
>
> Taking this to a whole new level of "off topic", I wonder if Stigler's
> Law is self-referential?  That is, should Stigler's Law more correctly
> be attributed to someone else?
>
>>> On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:33 AM, (Ted Harding) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>> Apologies to anyone who'd prefer not to see this query
>>>> on this list; but I'm asking because it is probably the
>>>> forum where I'm most likely to get a good answer!
>>>>
>>>> I'm interested in the provenance of the name "normal
>>>> distribution" (for what I'd really prefer to call the
>>>> "Gaussian" distribution).
>>>>
>>>> According to Wikipedia, "The name "normal distribution"
>>>> was coined independently by Charles S. Peirce, Francis
>>>> Galton and Wilhelm Lexis around 1875."
>>>>
>>>> So be it, if that was the case -- but I would like to
>>>> know why they chose the name "normal": what did they
>>>> intend to convey?
>>>>
>>>> As background: I'm reflecting a bit on the usage in
>>>> statistics of "everyday language" as techincal terms,
>>>> as in "significantly different". This, for instance,
>>>> is likely to be misunderstood by the general publidc
>>>> when they encounter statements in the media.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, "normally distributed" would probably be
>>>> interpreted as "distributed in the way one would
>>>> normally expect" or, perhaps, "there was nothing
>>>> unusual about the distribution."
>>>>
>>>> Comments welcome!
>>>> With thanks,
>>>> Ted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.