Wow. I was not aware of the #eugenics beliefs of three so formative figures of #statistics.
Lessons in science should also include a bit about the persons.
via @bartlettje
@cweickhmann @bartlettje Worth also considering that lessons about people should consider the historical context.
Eugenics is not a policy we’d consider for a second today. But then, it had wide support as a rational policy among intellectuals and in governments. Fisher, Pearson etc were reflections of their society, not new demons.
So a lesson for me is that if such intelligent men could fall unwittingly into such an awful misconception, perhaps we could too.
I half agree. Eugenics was extremely popular and part of many government policies, but it wasn't as if there was total agreement. In the article, the author highlights different scientists who rejected the idea of eugenics.
Galton, Pearson, and Fisher seemed to have been particularly cruel in their support of eugenics.
@bartlettje I wasn't suggesting a relation between statistics and eugenics. I hope it did not come across as such. I think, however, the historical persons should be discussed at least briefly in sciences. Because there is no such thing as "pure science". There are always human motives, good or bad. @slrellison
@cweickhmann @bartlettje No; I didn’t take the post that way. It is about the people, not the toolkit.
It is a cautionary history, though, whichever way we look at it. And we certainly _should_ look at it.