@slrellison @cweickhmann

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.

@bartlettje @cweickhmann A fair point indeed.

@slrellison I very much doubt the "unwittingly" quality. The article very clearly states that all three used statistics to justify their eugenics beliefs. I don't think you or anyone else could just "fall for eugenics". @bartlettje

@cweickhmann @bartlettje I think this is the difficulty of judging historical attitudes. I’m sure they knew very well what they were supporting. The problem is that I think they thought it was a good thing. And the ideas seem to have had the implicit, and often active, support of a wide range of influential people.

That’s what I mean by ‘unwitting’: I don’t think they were intending evil by the standards of their time. That is a lesson for today too.