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

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.
:-)

--Jim Rogers 


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. 

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.

 > 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

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.

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

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.
 >>

 >
 >

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.

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?
    

No.  If Stigler's Law were named after some prior person,
then it wouldn't be an example of itself.
  

Patrick Burns wrote:

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?
    

No.  If Stigler's Law were named after some prior person,
then it wouldn't be an example of itself.
  

Only if said person actually was first to discover it, surely.

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
  

Patrick Burns wrote:
    

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?
    
        

No.  If Stigler's Law were named after some prior person,
then it wouldn't be an example of itself.
  
      

Only if said person actually was first to discover it, surely.
    

I believe that Stigler believes that he was not the first to discover
Stigler's Law

Andrew Robinson wrote:

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:22:41PM +0100, Peter Dalgaard wrote:

Patrick Burns wrote:

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?

No.  If Stigler's Law were named after some prior person,
then it wouldn't be an example of itself.

Only if said person actually was first to discover it, surely.

I believe that Stigler believes that he was not the first to discover
Stigler's Law

Which is why it is an example of itself...

-- 
  O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph:  (+45)  
35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)              FAX: (+45)  
35327907

Wikipedia says:

Stigler attributes the discovery of Stigler's Law to Robert K. Merton
(which makes the law self-referencing).

(Working as a historian of science he should have proceeded to name
the law Merton's law only to find out
later that actually someone had discovered it even earlier.)

Ingmar

[edit]
On 3 Mar 2008, at 19:17, 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?