Posted: May 06, 2018 6:54 pm
Thommo wrote:What? 17 is too large for the statistical method?
That's just not true. At all. 17 is a small sample. Samples of a hundred or thousand would be more appropriate for this kind of analysis.
What you're describing is cherry picking and it is profoundly, pathologically un-statistical in nature.
http://listverse.com/2009/02/24/top-10- ... cientists/
Newton is not No. 1 and Darwin's achievement can't enter the top 10.
https://www.biographyonline.net/scienti ... tists.html
http://www.elist10.com/top-10-greatest- ... ged-world/
https://gineersnow.com/engineering/scie ... tists-time
Although there are different opinions, it does not matter. Most of the 10 scientists are water signs.