Steiger J H
Multivariate Behav Res. 1996 Oct 1;31(4):617-30. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3104_14.
Nearly 70 years ago, eminent mathematician Edwin Bidwell Wilson attended a dinner at Harvard where visitor Charles Spearman discussed the "two-factor theory" of intelligence and his just-released book The Abilities of Man. Wilson, having just discovered factor indeterminacy, attempted to explain to Spearman and the assembled guests that Spearman's two-factor theory might have a non-uniqueness problem. Neither Spearman nor the guests could follow Wilson's argument, but Wilson persisted, first through correspondence, later through a series of publications that spanned more than a decade, involving Spearman and several other influential statisticians in an extended debate. Many years have passed since the Spearman-Wilson debates, yet the fascinating statistical, logical, and philosophical issues surrounding factor indeterminacy are very much alive. Equally fascinating are the sociological issues and historical questions surrounding the way indeterminacy has periodically vanished from basic textbooks on factor analysis. In this article, I delineate some of these historical-sociological issues, and respond to a critique from some recent commentators on the history of factor indeterminacy.
近70年前，杰出数学家埃德温·比德韦尔·威尔逊参加了在哈佛举行的一场晚宴，访客查尔斯·斯皮尔曼在晚宴上讨论了智力的“双因素理论”以及他刚出版的《人类的能力》一书。威尔逊刚刚发现了因素不确定性，试图向斯皮尔曼和在场的宾客解释，斯皮尔曼的双因素理论可能存在非唯一性问题。斯皮尔曼和宾客都无法理解威尔逊的论点，但威尔逊坚持不懈，先是通过书信，后来又通过一系列持续了十多年的出版物，与斯皮尔曼以及其他几位有影响力的统计学家展开了一场旷日持久的辩论。斯皮尔曼与威尔逊的辩论已经过去了许多年，但围绕因素不确定性的那些引人入胜的统计学、逻辑学和哲学问题依然存在。同样引人入胜的是围绕不确定性如何周期性地从因素分析基础教科书中消失的社会学问题和历史问题。在本文中，我将阐述其中一些历史社会学问题，并回应近期一些关于因素不确定性历史的评论者的批评。
