Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- PART ONE PROBABILITY
- PART TWO PERSONALITIES
- 5 The Birth of the Central Limit Theorem [with Persi Diaconis]
- 6 Ramsey, Truth, and Probability
- 7 R. A. Fisher on the History of Inverse Probability
- 8 R. A. Fisher and the Fiducial Argument
- 9 Alan Turing and the Central Limit Theorem
- PART THREE PREDICTION
- Index
7 - R. A. Fisher on the History of Inverse Probability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- PART ONE PROBABILITY
- PART TWO PERSONALITIES
- 5 The Birth of the Central Limit Theorem [with Persi Diaconis]
- 6 Ramsey, Truth, and Probability
- 7 R. A. Fisher on the History of Inverse Probability
- 8 R. A. Fisher and the Fiducial Argument
- 9 Alan Turing and the Central Limit Theorem
- PART THREE PREDICTION
- Index
Summary
Abstract. R. A. Fisher's account of the decline of inverse probability methods during the latter half of the nineteenth century identifies Boole, Venn and Chrystal as the key figures in this change. Careful examination of these and other writings of the period, however, reveals a different and much more complex picture. Contrary to Fisher's account, inverse methods – at least in modified form – remained theoretically respectable until the 1920s, when the work of Fisher and then Neyman caused their eclipse for the next quarter century.
Key words and phrases: R. A. Fisher, inverse probability, history of statistics.
R. A. Fisher was a lifelong critic of inverse probability. In the second chapter of his last book, Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference (1956), Fisher traced the history of what he saw as the increasing disaffection with Bayesian methods that arose during the second half of the nineteenth century. Fisher's account is one of the few that covers this neglected period in the history of probability, in effect taking up where Todhunter (1865) left off, and has often been cited (e.g., Passmore, 1968, page 550, n. 7 and page 551, n. 15; de Finetti, 1972, page 159; Shafer, 1976, page 25). The picture portrayed is one of gradual progress, the logical lacunae and misconceptions of the inverse methods being steadily recognized and eventually discredited.
But on reflection Fisher's portrait does not appear entirely plausible.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Symmetry and its DiscontentsEssays on the History of Inductive Probability, pp. 142 - 160Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005