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

[John Fox]

Dear Doug,

As I recall, according to Stigler, yes -- he wasn't the first to
formulate Stigler's law of eponymy (but I don't recall to whom he
attributed it).

Regards,
 John 

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:17:59 -0600
 "Douglas Bates" <bates at stat.wisc.edu> 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.

--------------------------------
John Fox, Professor
Department of Sociology
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/