4 ms·

This article combines some issues that I think are really independent, so I'll have to comment by separating them. 1. Some of the founding figures of modern st

by wrp 4y ago

This article combines some issues that I think are really independent, so I'll have to comment by separating them. 1. Some of the founding figures of modern statistics held objectionable moral views. He would like to cancel them for that, but can't because they were such central contributors to the field. OK, I guess nothing more to say about that. 2. There are technical reasons for objecting to NHST. You seem well read on that and I probably agree with your position. 3. Eugenics is bad. However, eugenics is bad because of its moral position, not because of faulty scientific work. The field of animal husbandry is well developed and scientifically sound. Eugenics is the application of the principles of animal husbandry to humans. It is not the science that is necessarily bad, but the motivation of its application. This is not to deny that there may have been poor quality work done in the field of eugenics. 4. Some of the work published in eugenics may have been the result of sloppy or dishonest analysis. This could be true, but again, this is not what makes eugenics bad. Also, the fact that we can evaluate research as being sloppy or dishonest indicates that we do have objective standards for acceptable work.

JHonaker 4y ago
I agree that it combines things to try to form a more rhetorically convincing argument, but to me, most of them are convincing on their own. I think it's also more representative of the author's view that he believes that it was precisely the extreme conviction that white, European society was morally, culturally, and genetically superior that led to the development of methods that were devoid of a preference for position (and thus completely objective) that led to many of the confusing methods in use today. I also think there's a useful distinction to be made between the terms "genetics" and "eugenics". I don't think anyone would argue that there aren't meaningful genetic differences between different groups of humans. It's the degree of extremity and the sheer horror of the conclusions drawn and methods advocated for by eugenicists that makes the distinction. Like yes, an increased probability of sickle cell anemia is a direct result of a population's adaption to an environment rife with Malaria, but that doesn't justify (I'm vaguely paraphrasing Pearson or Galton from memory here) the genocide and replacement of those people with those more capable of exploiting the natural resources of their environment (meaning white Victorian aristocrats, or at least slaves "employed" by white, Victorian aristocrats). It's interesting to see conversations around human genomic differences rise up again with things like CRISPR, and I guess that would fall under "eugenics" but it's clearly not the same thing. I also take issue with the idea that "it's not the science that's bad" in even tacit defense of early 1900s eugenicists. It's very telling to read the descriptions of the studies and conclusions that Galton, Pearson, and Fisher performed. It's telling to watch them discount clear counter-examples or re-define the desirability of traits, to watch them call an aristocrat industrious and a Jewish migrant greedy, to watch them all but spell out exactly what their conclusions are, develop methods "devoid of opinion" and of "pure objectivity through data," and then unabashedly call for the justified forced sterilization, mass genocide, and the denigration of non-white, non-aristocratic, non-male, non-Europeans as deterministically inferior. Sorry for the rant. I wasn't aware of the horrific history of statistics when I decided to take it up, and now I take it as a person mission to fight against the "let the data speak for themselves" attitude. I want to make sure people know what "objective in-difference" with implicit assumptions can justify. Maybe more to the point of your points :D : 1. Yea, not much more to say about that. 2. We do agree based on our conversation elsewhere in these threads. 3. It is bad because of both its immoral position and its faulty scientific work. The justification is equivalent to that of any of the latest unrepeatable studies on power posing and finite will power. 4. Again, it was intentionally misleading (as much as someone wholeheartedly convinced of something is misleading), and doesn't stand up to even contemporary criticisms (IMO). I do think we have objective standards, but I don't think those objective standards are reflected or implied by NHST. Nor do I think a modern person using NHST is somehow a eugenicist by transitivity. It's more that my position is NHST has infected the scientific community precisely because of its self-reported objectivity. I think it's my field's (statistics) personal failure to bear. I think we stayed content too long as the dispensers of "objective methods" without really doing a good job of stressing the nuances and frailties associated with any particular method.
- wrp 4y ago
  Thank you for taking the time. I am just concerned that when an objectionable endeavor is criticized for being based on bad science, it leaves room for the inference that if the science was done better, the endeavor would be acceptable. Thus, my desire to stress the distinction between competence and morality. > I also think there's a useful distinction to be made between the terms "genetics" and "eugenics". Yes, I was thinking of that point. Part of the problem in discussing "eugenics" is that it is commonly used to cover two projects. One is to understand the nature of the inheritance of physical traits, what we call "genetics". The other is to use that understanding to pursue population management, what we call "animal husbandry" in one context.

by wrp 4y ago

JHonaker 4y ago

I agree that it combines things to try to form a more rhetorically convincing argument, but to me, most of them are convincing on their own. I think it's also more representative of the author's view that he believes that it was precisely the extreme conviction that white, European society was morally, culturally, and genetically superior that led to the development of methods that were devoid of a preference for position (and thus completely objective) that led to many of the confusing methods in use today. I also think there's a useful distinction to be made between the terms "genetics" and "eugenics". I don't think anyone would argue that there aren't meaningful genetic differences between different groups of humans. It's the degree of extremity and the sheer horror of the conclusions drawn and methods advocated for by eugenicists that makes the distinction. Like yes, an increased probability of sickle cell anemia is a direct result of a population's adaption to an environment rife with Malaria, but that doesn't justify (I'm vaguely paraphrasing Pearson or Galton from memory here) the genocide and replacement of those people with those more capable of exploiting the natural resources of their environment (meaning white Victorian aristocrats, or at least slaves "employed" by white, Victorian aristocrats). It's interesting to see conversations around human genomic differences rise up again with things like CRISPR, and I guess that would fall under "eugenics" but it's clearly not the same thing. I also take issue with the idea that "it's not the science that's bad" in even tacit defense of early 1900s eugenicists. It's very telling to read the descriptions of the studies and conclusions that Galton, Pearson, and Fisher performed. It's telling to watch them discount clear counter-examples or re-define the desirability of traits, to watch them call an aristocrat industrious and a Jewish migrant greedy, to watch them all but spell out exactly what their conclusions are, develop methods "devoid of opinion" and of "pure objectivity through data," and then unabashedly call for the justified forced sterilization, mass genocide, and the denigration of non-white, non-aristocratic, non-male, non-Europeans as deterministically inferior. Sorry for the rant. I wasn't aware of the horrific history of statistics when I decided to take it up, and now I take it as a person mission to fight against the "let the data speak for themselves" attitude. I want to make sure people know what "objective in-difference" with implicit assumptions can justify. Maybe more to the point of your points :D : 1. Yea, not much more to say about that. 2. We do agree based on our conversation elsewhere in these threads. 3. It is bad because of both its immoral position and its faulty scientific work. The justification is equivalent to that of any of the latest unrepeatable studies on power posing and finite will power. 4. Again, it was intentionally misleading (as much as someone wholeheartedly convinced of something is misleading), and doesn't stand up to even contemporary criticisms (IMO). I do think we have objective standards, but I don't think those objective standards are reflected or implied by NHST. Nor do I think a modern person using NHST is somehow a eugenicist by transitivity. It's more that my position is NHST has infected the scientific community precisely because of its self-reported objectivity. I think it's my field's (statistics) personal failure to bear. I think we stayed content too long as the dispensers of "objective methods" without really doing a good job of stressing the nuances and frailties associated with any particular method.

wrp 4y ago
Thank you for taking the time. I am just concerned that when an objectionable endeavor is criticized for being based on bad science, it leaves room for the inference that if the science was done better, the endeavor would be acceptable. Thus, my desire to stress the distinction between competence and morality. > I also think there's a useful distinction to be made between the terms "genetics" and "eugenics". Yes, I was thinking of that point. Part of the problem in discussing "eugenics" is that it is commonly used to cover two projects. One is to understand the nature of the inheritance of physical traits, what we call "genetics". The other is to use that understanding to pursue population management, what we call "animal husbandry" in one context.