Resistance to new ideas*

[David Kerridge <dfkerridge@mac.com>]

I have been following with interest several threads which all
relate to the same basic problem: there is strong resistance to
the Deming Philosophy, even in ourselves. It may help to see
this in a wider context, which may suggest ways to overcome it.


In the history of science resistance to new ideas is not unusual.
There was resistance to (for example) the germ theory of disease,
Botzmann's thermodynamics, the theory of continental drift, the
use of statistics in medicine....

Sometimes this may have represented the "establishment"
protecting its position, but I think this is rarer than we might
suppose. I would like to tell two related stories of resistance
which still affect us, whether we realise it or not. Or perhaps
we should call it blindness, not just resistance.


The first concerns the statistical theory of Sir Ronald Fisher.
He wrote on estimation and the testing of scientific theories.
In statistics R A Fisher *was* the establishment. Yet within a
short time his theory was displaced by the ideas of E S Pearson
and Jerzy Neyman. Fisher never forgave them, saying that the
new ideas were bad science. Neyman and Pearson were puzzled,
as they thought they were simply clarifying what Fisher had said.

Then Walter A Shewhart wrote his book on Statistical Control.
Shewhart *was* the statistical establishment in the USA. His ideas
were regarded as so important by E S Pearson that a special section
of the Royal Statistical Society was set up to spread Shewhart's ideas.
To help launch this, E S Pearson wrote a paper which "improved" on
Shewhart's ideas, and to our way of thinking, missed the point
completely. Yet almost all teaching on SPC ever since has been
based on Pearson's version, rather than Shewhart's.


All this is a matter of record, yet few people know that anything
strange has happened. When WED introduced the distinction
between enumerative and analytic studies, he was acting as a
peacemaker. He said "Fisher solved the analytic problem, and
Neyman the enumerative problem". But because most people
are not aware of the clash between Neyman/Pearson and Fisher,
WED's peacemaking effort has just seemed liked adding a new
problem.

Incidentally, WED had the greatest respect for both R A Fisher
and Jerzy Neyman, and invited both to lecture at the US Dept
of Agriculture. Not at the same time, of course.

So far, this is just recorded history. I will try to comment on the
implications of these examplesin separate postings, as I will
necessarily be expressing a personal opinion.
--
Best wishes

David

dfkerridge@mac.com