Discussion of D. Denis. Fisher : responsible, not guilty

 Access to full text

 Full (PDF)

1. BERGER J. O. (2003). Could Fisher, Jeffreys and Neyman Have Agreed on Testing? [With discussion]. Statistical Science, 18, 1-32. Zbl1048.62006MR1997064
2. BERKSON J. (1942). Tests of significance considered as evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 37, 325-335. 
3. EFRON B. (1998). R.A. Fisher in the 21st century [With discussion]. Statistical Science, 13, 95-122. Zbl1074.01536MR1647499
4. FISHER R. A. (1926). The Arrangement of Field Experiments. Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain, 33, 503-513. 
5. FISHER R. A. (1928). The Effect of Psychological Card Preferences. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 38, 269-271. 
6. FISHER R. A. (1929). The Statistical Method in Psychical Research. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 38, 189-192. 
7. FISHER R. A. (1958). The Nature of Probability. Centennial Review, 2, 261-274. 
8. FISHER R. A. (1959). Smoking. The cancer controversy, Edindurgh: Oliver and Boyd. 
9. FISHER R. A. (1962). Some examples of Bayes's method of the experimental determination of probabilities a priori. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 24, 118-124. Zbl0114.10203MR149625
10. GOODMAN S. N., & BERLIN J. A. (1994). The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121, 200-206. 
11. KRUSKAL W. H. (1980). The significance of Fisher: A review of R.A. Fisher, the life of a scientist. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 1019-1030. 
12. LECOUTRE B. (2004). Expérimentation, inférence statistique et analyse causale. Intellectica, 38, 193-245. 
13. LECOUTRE B. (2005). The right use of interval estimates in ANOVA. Submitted for publication. 
14. LECOUTRE M.-P., POITEVINEAU J., & LECOUTRE B. (2003). Even statisticians are not immune to misinterpretations of Null Hypothesis Significance Tests. International Journal of Psychology, 38, 37-45. 
15. LEHMANN E. L. (1993). The Fisher, Neyman-Pearson theories of testing hypotheses: one theory or two? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1242-1249. Zbl0805.62023MR1245356
16. MORRISON D. E., & HENKEL R. E. (Eds.) (1970). The Significance Test Controversy - A Reader. London: Butterwoths. 
17. NEYMAN J., & PEARSON E. S. ( 1933a). On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 231, 289-337. Zbl0006.26804JFM59.1163.02
18. NEYMAN J., & PEARSON E. S. ( 1933b). The testing of statistical hypotheses in relation to probabilities a priori. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 29, 492-510. Zbl0008.02401JFM59.1163.03
19. OAKES M. (1986). Statistical Inference: A Commentary for the Social and Behavioural Sciences. New York: Wiley. 
20. PERLMAN M. D., & WU L. (1999). The emperor's new tests. Statistical Science, 14, 355-369. Zbl1059.62515MR1765215
21. SAVAGE L. J. (1976). On rereading R.A. Fisher [With discussion]. Annals of Statistics, 4, 441-500. Zbl0325.62008MR403889
22. STREET D. J. (1990). Fisher's contributions to agricultural statistics. Biometrics, 46, 937-945. Zbl0726.01011
23. TRYON W. W. (2001). Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals: An integrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychological-methods, 6, 371-386. 
24. WILKINSON L. and Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs (1999). Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604. 
25. YATES F. (1964). Sir Ronald Fisher and the design of experiments. Biometrics, 20, 307-321.