3 ms·

I mean the discussion of the reasons and motivations for the development of many classical techniques actually does lend credence to the argument that they are

I mean the discussion of the reasons and motivations for the development of many classical techniques actually does lend credence to the argument that they are misleading (by design). That said, I find the technical arguments against NHST to be just as necessary (and I also find them just as convincing). I'm curious what your actual objections are to this?

dekhn 4y ago
I don't know what the official term for it is, but because I do not believe the nature of abstract statistics is specifically bound (other than historically) with eugenics (IE, the founders of statistics were also eugenecists, but I don't think they embedded the principles of eugenics into statistics). Instead, the argument should be entirely about the abstract details of statistics. Other historical articles can bring up (and attempt to make the case for) the linkage between the two concepts. Eugenics is like a strange attractor for scientists: over and over again, smart quantitative people who learn about genetics, selective breeding, and human phenotypes all end up converging on the idea of using selective breeding humans to "improve the phenotype" in their biased and preconceived notion of what "improve" and "phenotype" mean. It's not at all surprising that Galton (one of my personal heros for his statistical work; I made a Galton board) and Fisher (not one of my favorites) both explored these ideas alongside their scientific efforts.
- JHonaker 4y ago
  I don't think using frequentist methods makes anyone a eugenicist by transitivity, but I do think it's important to understand the motivations behind the development of notoriously confusing, misapplied methods. If you consider the context, I think the author's position that the confusing aspects of it are very likely because of the desire to (falsely) profess that we have removed all aspects of judgemental decisions from a particular procedure which was driven by the desire to convince people that it wasn't their opinion, but fact, that they were genetically superior beings.

dekhn 4y ago

I don't know what the official term for it is, but because I do not believe the nature of abstract statistics is specifically bound (other than historically) with eugenics (IE, the founders of statistics were also eugenecists, but I don't think they embedded the principles of eugenics into statistics). Instead, the argument should be entirely about the abstract details of statistics. Other historical articles can bring up (and attempt to make the case for) the linkage between the two concepts. Eugenics is like a strange attractor for scientists: over and over again, smart quantitative people who learn about genetics, selective breeding, and human phenotypes all end up converging on the idea of using selective breeding humans to "improve the phenotype" in their biased and preconceived notion of what "improve" and "phenotype" mean. It's not at all surprising that Galton (one of my personal heros for his statistical work; I made a Galton board) and Fisher (not one of my favorites) both explored these ideas alongside their scientific efforts.

JHonaker 4y ago
I don't think using frequentist methods makes anyone a eugenicist by transitivity, but I do think it's important to understand the motivations behind the development of notoriously confusing, misapplied methods. If you consider the context, I think the author's position that the confusing aspects of it are very likely because of the desire to (falsely) profess that we have removed all aspects of judgemental decisions from a particular procedure which was driven by the desire to convince people that it wasn't their opinion, but fact, that they were genetically superior beings.