Historically, at least to my eyes, this seems to derive from how mathematics has been cited by mathematicians.
Before a thing is called 'Levenshtein Distance' it will be used by someone saying 'calculating distance between these two strings the way Levenshtein did in [0]'. Eventually, when enough people do this, or someone gets particularly bold, the method will instead be given its name (occasionally, the original author will be so bold, but that seems rare). If I were looking to procrastinate more than I already am I would go find some examples of this, examples that unfortunately don't spring immediately to mind though I'm sure I remember their shadows.
As to why they are not named for what they represent - it's only after the thing has been invented, tested, and named that we realise that it is the correct or best way to do a thing. Often there are multiple ways of doing things (this is Levenshteins edit distance) and so they are named to distinguish them from each other. The survivor is not renamed just because the others are forgotten.
Before a thing is called 'Levenshtein Distance' it will be used by someone saying 'calculating distance between these two strings the way Levenshtein did in [0]'. Eventually, when enough people do this, or someone gets particularly bold, the method will instead be given its name (occasionally, the original author will be so bold, but that seems rare). If I were looking to procrastinate more than I already am I would go find some examples of this, examples that unfortunately don't spring immediately to mind though I'm sure I remember their shadows.
As to why they are not named for what they represent - it's only after the thing has been invented, tested, and named that we realise that it is the correct or best way to do a thing. Often there are multiple ways of doing things (this is Levenshteins edit distance) and so they are named to distinguish them from each other. The survivor is not renamed just because the others are forgotten.
[0] not a real reference