STIGLER'S LAW OF EPONYMY*
1980; Wiley; Volume: 39; Issue: 1 Series II Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02775.x
ISSN2164-0947
Autores Tópico(s)Economic Theory and Institutions
ResumoTransactions of the New York Academy of SciencesVolume 39, Issue 1 Series II p. 147-157 STIGLER'S LAW OF EPONYMY* Stephen M. Stigler, Stephen M. Stigler Department of Statistics University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637Search for more papers by this author Stephen M. Stigler, Stephen M. Stigler Department of Statistics University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637Search for more papers by this author First published: April 1980 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02775.xCitations: 156 † This work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, Nos. SOC 78–01668 and BNS 76–22943 A02. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References 1 Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Edited and with an introduction by W. Storer Norman. U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. Chapter 14, Priorities in Scientific Discovery, first published 1957. Google Scholar 2 Merton, R. K. Ref. 1: 298. Google Scholar 3 Merton, R. K. Ref. 1: 299. Google Scholar 4 Merton, R. K. Ref. 1: 303. Google Scholar 5 Merton, R. K. Ref. 1: 356. Google Scholar 6 Stigler, G. J. 1947. Notes on the History of the Giffen Paradox. J. Polit. Econ. 55. Reprinted as Chapter 14 of Essays in the History of Economics, George J. Stigler. 1965. U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. 10.1086/256487 Google Scholar 7 Tian-se, A. 1978. Chinese Interest in Right-Angled Triangles. Historia Mathematica, 5: 253–266. 10.1016/0315-0860(78)90111-8 Google Scholar 8 An important source for future eponymic research would be Eponymsw dictionaries index. A reference guide to persons, both real and imaginary, and the terms derived from their names, by A. Ruffner James (Detroit: Gale Research Press, 1977), but even this large volume is not without its errors or omissions. See, for example, the short review in Language in Society, 7 (1978): 149. Google Scholar 9 Some of my colleagues, commenting on a draft of this paper, have intimated that the norm of humility is not the only reason for avoiding an autoeponymous designation for the Law. They have ventured the suggestion that the Law is not correct, and even helpfully supplied collections of what are purported to be counterexamples. Now it may in fact be that the literal absolute truth of the Law cannot be defended without occasionally descending to the argumentative depths of adumbrationism (for a discussion of which, see page 20ff. of R. K. Merton's On Theoretical Sociology, New York: The Free Press, 1967), or appealing to as yet unnoticed (and earlier) multiple discoveries, but this would not be crucial to the main line of the argument. While exceptions to the Law will only be granted after a struggle and on a case by case basis, all that is really necessary is that the reader grant the frequent truth of the Law, and agree to the unreliability of eponyms as guideposts to original discovery. For this, the examples presented (and appeal to the reader's own experience) should be sufficient proof. Google Scholar 10 David, F. N. 1962. Games, Gods and Gambling: 81–82. Hafner Pub. Co., New York, N.Y. Google Scholar 11 What Merton has called the palimpsestic syndrome; see his On the Shoulders of Giants: 218–219, 1965. Free Press, New York, N.Y. Google Scholar 12 For another, similar adumbration of the Law, see The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson 1966. J. E. Stiglitz, Ed. Vol. 2, 1503. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. Google Scholar 13 Cole, J. R. & S. Cole. 1973. Social Stratification in Science: 31. U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. Google Scholar 14 Heyde, C. C. & E. Seneta. 1977. I. J. Bienaymé: Statistical Theory Anticipated: 90. Springer-Verlag. New York, N.Y. 10.1007/978-1-4684-9469-3 Google Scholar 15 In more standard sociological terminology, what I call impartiality, is called the norm of universalism. See Merton, Ref. 1: 270. Google Scholar 16 Newcomb, S. 1878. Popular Astronomy: 355. Harper & Bros., New York, N.Y. Google Scholar 17 Heyde, C. C. & E. Seneta. 1977. Ref. 14: 121–124. Google Scholar 18 Laplace's first encounter with f(x) was as an approximation to the posterior distribution of a probability, a very different use than that Gauss made of f(x). If only the linking of f(x) to least squares is considered, then the earliest publication yet found was by the American Robert Adrain in an obscure magazine dated 1808, a year before Gauss's book appeared. Google Scholar 19 Walker, H. M. 1929. Studies in the History of Statistical Method: 13–19. Reprinted 1975 by Arno Press. New York, N.Y. Google Scholar 20 I am currently engaged in joint research with William H. Kruskal into the history of the use of "normal" in this and other connections. See W. Kruskal, 1978. Formulas, Numbers, Words: Statistics in Prose, In: The American Scholar, 47: 223–229, for a brief statement of some of our findings. Google Scholar 21 Ross, L. C. & J. W. Tukey. 1975. Index to Statistics and Probability: Permuted Titles Two Volumes. R & D Press. Los Altos, Calif. Google Scholar 22 Joiner, B. L., N. F. Laubscher, E. S. Brown & B. Levy. 1970. An Author and Permuted Title Index to Selected Statistical Journals. National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 321. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar 23 The Current Index to Statistics. 197576. Published annually by the American Statistical Association and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Google Scholar 24 Some additional evidence relevant to my case may be found in D. Beaver's "Reflections on the Natural History of Eponymy and Scientific Law", in Social Studies of Science (Vol. 6, 1976, pp. 89–98). Beaver shows that as of 1961, eponyms honoring twentieth-century discoveries in physics were far less numerous than those naming earlier scientists, when the different sizes of the scientific communities are allowed for: in Beaver's cross-sectional analysis, the population of eponyms did not seem to be growing exponentially. I take this to be most plausibly explained by a long (say, 30–60 years) average delay in the award of eponyms, such as found in the present longitudinal study, and thus at least consistent with the case presented here. Beaver's different conclusion (that either fundamental discoveries are becoming rarer, or eponymic practice is undergoing a marked change) does not seem to me to be warranted by the data. 10.1177/030631277600600105 Web of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume39, Issue1 Series IIApril 1980Pages 147-157 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)