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.
@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.
@slrellison
Indeed it is hard to look at this from today's POV without having today's POV (which includes the eugenics excesses of the Nazis). But I still think, eugenics, even in the 19th century, were objectively bad. Elitist and inhumane. And there are many contemporaries who called them out for that.
@bartlettje
