No Aphorism Is More Frequently Repeated In

Modern Statisticians Are Familiar With The Notion That Any Finite Body Of Data Contains Only A Limited Amount Of Information On Any Point Under Examination; That This Limit Is Set By The Nature Of The Data Themselves, And Cannot Be Increased By Any Amount Of Ingenuity Expended In Their Statistical Examination: That The Statistician's Task, In Fact, Is Limited To The Extraction Of The Whole Of The Available Information On Any Particular Issue.

More Attention To The History Of Science Is Needed, As Much By Scientists As By Historians, And Especially By Biologists, And This Should Mean A Deliberate Attempt To Understand The Thoughts Of The Great Masters Of The Past, To See In What Circumstances Or Intellectual Milieu Their Ideas Were Formed, Where They Took The Wrong Turning Or Stopped Short On The Right Track.

Although No Explanation Can Be Expected To Be Satisfactory, It Remains A Possibility Among Others That Mendel Was Deceived By Some Assistant Who Knew Too Well What Was Expected. This Possibility Is Supported By Independent Evidence That The Data Of Most, If Not All, Of The Experiments Have Been Falsified So As To Agree Closely With Mendel's Expectations.

After All, It Is A Common Weakness Of Young Authors To Put Too Much Into Their Papers.

The So-called Co-efficient Of Heritability, Which I Regard As One Of Those Unfortunate Short-cuts, Which Have Often Emerged In Biometry For Lack Of A More Thorough Analysis Of The Data.