3 ms·

Not really sure how you would get the sense that his “real target” is significance testing. Seemed much more just an interesting history of how authority, powe

Not really sure how you would get the sense that his “real target” is significance testing. Seemed much more just an interesting history of how authority, power, and bad science can intertwine, to disastrous effect.

boxed 4y ago
> Statistical thinking and eugenicist thinking are, in fact, deeply intertwined, and many of the theoretical problems with methods like significance testing—first developed to identify racial differences—are remnants of their original purpose, to support eugenics. This is in the fourth paragraph. This is clearly a hit piece against not just science but the very idea that truth can exist.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Is the assertion not true? It does seem to be a truth that the origin of statistics was closely tied to eugenicist goals. "Science" isn't a helpless creature that can be hit or needs to be defended. It's a collection of knowledge and techniques. No technique is invalidated solely by knowledge of its origins, but an awareness of the goals and constraints under which a technique is developed can give us insight into its uses and limitations now. The idea that we shouldn't pursue those paths of knowledge, out of a responsibility to preserve the myth of science's purity from political considerations, is a radical ideology. Attempting to hide these ties, or refusing to address them, does not serve the ideals of truth that you're implying compel you.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    it is truth that the origin of statistics was closely tied to eugenicist goals, but it can be completely decoupled (IE, in an alternate universe, statistics was invented and refined entirely on crop yield predictions). The general mainstream belief is that there is nothing truly technically "wrong" with the approach that was developed then, nor does the mainstream believe that fisher and galton were the last word in statistics.
  - boxed 4y ago
    No. The assertion I cited is not true. The ORIGIN might be linked but the MATH is absolutely not "interwined". Also, what are the issues with statistical significance? The article just says it has some connection with eugenics and leaves it there.
- soledades 4y ago
  That’s one hell of a leap there, friend.
  - boxed 4y ago
    Didn't you read the quote? It's flat out wrong at best.

boxed 4y ago

> Statistical thinking and eugenicist thinking are, in fact, deeply intertwined, and many of the theoretical problems with methods like significance testing—first developed to identify racial differences—are remnants of their original purpose, to support eugenics. This is in the fourth paragraph. This is clearly a hit piece against not just science but the very idea that truth can exist.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Is the assertion not true? It does seem to be a truth that the origin of statistics was closely tied to eugenicist goals. "Science" isn't a helpless creature that can be hit or needs to be defended. It's a collection of knowledge and techniques. No technique is invalidated solely by knowledge of its origins, but an awareness of the goals and constraints under which a technique is developed can give us insight into its uses and limitations now. The idea that we shouldn't pursue those paths of knowledge, out of a responsibility to preserve the myth of science's purity from political considerations, is a radical ideology. Attempting to hide these ties, or refusing to address them, does not serve the ideals of truth that you're implying compel you.
- dekhn 4y ago
  it is truth that the origin of statistics was closely tied to eugenicist goals, but it can be completely decoupled (IE, in an alternate universe, statistics was invented and refined entirely on crop yield predictions). The general mainstream belief is that there is nothing truly technically "wrong" with the approach that was developed then, nor does the mainstream believe that fisher and galton were the last word in statistics.
- boxed 4y ago
  No. The assertion I cited is not true. The ORIGIN might be linked but the MATH is absolutely not "interwined". Also, what are the issues with statistical significance? The article just says it has some connection with eugenics and leaves it there.
soledades 4y ago
That’s one hell of a leap there, friend.
- boxed 4y ago
  Didn't you read the quote? It's flat out wrong at best.