Talk:Gregor Mendel

Citation Needed for Fischer's statement about Mendel's confirmation bias

this is a paper analyzing Fisher's Paper in regard to his criticism of Mendel and the Method used.

It's my first time here and I guess I'm not doing this right.. Sorry for that

Sekroy (Sekroy) 23:17, 27 July 2019 (MESZ)

References

Nationality

There is an mistake in the article. Mendel was not Austrian, he was Moravian. More precisely, a German-speaking Moravian, at least that's what he himself claimed to be, a "German-speaking Moravian." So please correct it and instead of "Austrian" write his true nationality as "Moravian." Thank you Ondřej Mazáč (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That's absolutely true. Me too, I don't understand it at all. His nationality can be only Moravian or Czech (with German ancestors), I don't understand at all why for example František Palacký born in the next village at the same time is Czech on the Wiki and some people are Austrian, and the argument is that Czech Republic didn't exist at times. For example Marie Curie isn't considered Russian scientist, because Varšava was Russian when she was born. Annikahegarova (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Bohemian kingdom still exist at that time and he was citizen of Bohemian kingdom. He claim himself to be Moravian, so he can be Moravian, German-moravian, German-czech, Czech, Bohemian or Silesian (German-silesian). I don't understand the system, how you decide one's nationnlity, but he is definitely not Austrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanaKometaDušková (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In any case, why is the page currently saying German-Czech? While he might himself would have called himself German back in the time, the current meaning of the word is certainly different to how it was used back then. Should it not say Austrian-Czech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:EE41:4:B23B:AC0E:4C:F14C:5FD8 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no moravian ethnicity. He was german, just as most Austrians of that time were ethnically, since German speaking, German. There was no Czech at that time and many german speaking germans/Austrians (lets keep it as a synonym in this case) were living in present day Czech. We all know why this changed several decades later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.204.214 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

JOHAN GREGOR MENDEL WAS CZECH, NOT AUSTRIAN!!!!! 2A00:1028:83A6:2242:B04F:B0AF:1426:D615 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Science

All about gregor mendel 180.194.113.204 (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"Dolly" and "Covid" ..

и электромобили неисчерпаемые ветродуями ..

Это потомушто плетень такая. Вот с крыши камыш и уносят ветра ..

Был бы я сокол - все бы собрал обратно !! 85.140.22.254 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Misleading representation of cited source

One attempted explanation invokes confirmation bias. Fisher accused Mendel's experiments as "biased strongly in the direction of agreement with expectation [...] to give the theory the benefit of doubt". In his 2004 article, J.W. Porteous concluded that Mendel's observations were indeed implausible. However, reproduction of the experiments has demonstrated that there is no real bias towards Mendel's data.

The paper cited at the end of this paragraph determines that the tetrad-pollen model is insufficient to explain the bias Fisher observed in Mendel's data. The final two sentences when taken together, though, seem to indicate that it came to the opposite conclusion due to a "however" followed by ambiguous language in the second sentence, "real bias towards Mendel's data". Is it saying that Mendel's data was gathered in an unbiased manner (what I consider the more natural reading)? Or that real-world conditions did not present a 'biased'-situation under which Mendel's data could be accurate (which is what the paper says)? I think it could be cleaner.

I instead propose the following: "In his 2004 article, J.W. Porteous concluded that Mendel's observations were indeed implausible. The most popular theory of natural conditions which could account for the observed statistical irregularities of Mendel's data was tested in 2007, but did not produce evidence explaining the bias of Mendel's data."

Additionally, it might be worth talking about how Daniel Fairbanks contributed to both that paper, and the papers/books about how "they concluded that there were no reasons to assert Mendel fabricated his results, nor that Fisher deliberately tried to diminish Mendel's legacy". I feel like I'd need to read that book in order to figure out how all of these positions and ideas connect. Fiveeyesonetoe (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)