Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge [Hardcover]

Donald A. MacKenzie (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Edinburgh Univ Pr (April 1981)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0852243693
• ISBN-13: 978-0852243695
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 5.6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,749,109 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A remarkable presentation of the roots of modern statistics., July 14, 1997

By A Customer

This review is from: Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Hardcover)

Although MacKenzie writes as a sociologist of science, his evaluation of the work of Francis Galton, Karl Pearson and R.A. Fisher provides an excellent summary of their contributions to the development of mathematical statistics as we know it today. His sociological thesis is that the primary concepts of statistics were "invented", not "discovered", and that the social position of these men strongly influenced the content of their works. While this not a radical position today (at least in sociological circles) it was, in 1987, relatively unfamiliar to many statisticians.

All three of the major figures studied were connected to the eugenics movement, and MacKenzie examines the relationship of eugenics and biometry to their work in mathematical statistics. He shows how Fisher's Genetical Theory of Natural Selection evidences the eugenics goals which are usually associated with Pearson. While it is a bit trickier to connect his books on Scientific Inference and Statistical Methods to eugenics, MacKenzie is quite convincing.

I regret not having read this book ten years ago, since it clarified several issues that I have been struggling with as a teacher of statistics. I looked it up as a result of a reference in an article by John Aldrich in the journal Statistical Science (Vol. 10, No. 4, 364-376) on Pearson and Yule's views of spurious correlation. Statistical Science, by the way, often contains interesting pieces on the history of statistics.