Talk:Stigler's law of eponymy

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

So much nonsense

And has no place in an encyclopaedia. For example, Halley's comet was NOT known as a comet in 240 BC or 240 AD or 1240 AD. The concept of comet periodicity and specific predictability belongs firmly with Halley. Newton's laws, certainly 2 and 3, belong firmly with Newton. This is an amusing diversion for scientific after-hours clubs, not for a 'serious' encyclopaedia. But wait ...

> Some of the examples are bad, but there's very little doubt that the history of science regularly reveals a person who anticipated a much heralded discovery of another scientist. There's a deep vagueness in the notion of discovery, since a novel observation is often ignored or misunderstood when it is first made. Thus, a scientist who observes something but does not understand it, or who understands it differently from how it is understood later, will often not be credited with a discovery. > In any event, I seriously doubt that the concept of comet periodicity belongs _firmly_ with Halley. Why not with Newton? or Kepler? And dis Halley live in a closet, or was he hanging out with a bunch of Royal Society folks who read papers to him that gave him the idea... etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosofool (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

This article has no Wikipedia links, so here is a problem:

VfD, anyone?

True or false: this page deserves to be on Vfd. 66.32.95.180 01:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

False. There are quite a few fans devoted to collecting "real-life" examples, which are legion, at least in mathematics. See List of misnamed theorems.---CH 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's law or Stigler's law?

I propose that "Stigler's law of eponymy" should be named "Churchill's law of eponymy". This a) ensures that the law is not self contradictory, and b) pays homage to the fact that Winston Churchill is falsely credited with coining quotations all to often. (TRD) Thu Sep 16 16:11:01 BST 2004

No, no, no, as the article says, Stigler himself credited the law to Merton, but it is called Stigler's law regardless. This self-referential aspect is absolutely delightful! See e.g. Cramer's Paradox in List of misnamed theorems.---CH 18:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planck's constant

Is there any reference for the claim Planck's constant wasn't introduced by Planck? Notjim 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planck's Constant was introduced by Planck. This article is wrong to cite Planck's Law as an example of this so-called Stingler's Law. --Armaetin (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only this were the only thing wrong in this absurd article ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge

this should be merged with http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Stigler%27s_conjecture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.43.50 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2007

This is a crazy suggestion. The content of law and conjecture are unrelated. The Stiglers are not the same person although they are related, as father and son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.227.233 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stigler's law: No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer.

Stigler's conjecture: Credit for every idea in economics (and possibly other fields) is always given to the second person to have discovered it

It seems to me that the two are very closely related, the second is a strong version of the first, except that one is about "science", the other "economics". The articles should be merged.

Aleph-4 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

Stigler's conjecture had little backing it other than one essay, which didn't actually refer to it as "Stigler's conjecture". The Wiki article was speculative, it had touches of OR. I've merged it into this one. Fences and windows (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen or George?

From all I seen this "law" is usually attributed to George Stigler, Stephen's father (it might take me some time to track down the reference). Then there's the double attribution to Merton. Not sure this is correct, or it seems like somebody's trying to be ironic here.radek (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold's Principle?

It seems to be called Arnold's Principle (apparently named for Vladimir Arnold) around here (Moscow). Is it worth mentioning? --January First-of-May (for fans of Star Trek here), September 23, 2009 22:16 local (18:16 UTC)

It is not only in Moscow; the mathematical community generally uses the name Arnold's Principle. Here is Arnold's article where he discusses it and says that to was named by Berry. This should be worked into the article: http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html Bsimonca (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Barry Simon[reply]

Diseases

What has this line to do with the rest of the article: "Recent (2011) research shows a decline in the practice of naming diseases after doctors."?

I suggest it be removed altogether. Nanobug (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Removed. Qwfp (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke's First Law

Clarke's First Law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong

was more strongly put by Alfred Russel Wallace:

The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.

--Pawyilee (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, Clarke's formulation seems to be more memorable for more people than Wallace's wording. Reify-tech (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Clark's quote was given a name. (Thus more-or-less demonstrating Stigler's law.) — Loadmaster (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-exemplification

This is always laudable, but when it comes to a law, it is not useful add-on, but a pre-requisite. There is no question of a writer of a law disobeying his own law, even - and this is a critical point - he/she needs to lie to achieve that. For Stigler's Law to be a law, the owner very much needs to be someone other than Stigler. That's why I edited out "consciously making "Stigler's law" exemplify itself".

-- Nutria (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]