Stats Basterds

[fed2]

i was listening to podcast 'behind the bastards' got to thinking if there are any statisticians who were known bastards but contributed alot to stats theory. I mean reeeeeeeeeeeeal bastards, though, not just through modern eyes.

 

[Dason]

What exactly do you mean? Is eugenics back in the day bad enough or is that just "bad through modern eyes"?

 

[katxt]

I hate to quote this about one of our great statisticians - "He seemed inhuman sometimes in his lack of consideration for the feelings of others.... Capable of rough handling those who opposed him with ready-made arguments that he treated with contempt: He was sometimes arbitrary and disagreeable: and he was recalcitrant to any form of coercion." Joan Fisher-Box, RA Fisher: The Life of a Scientist'
His work on eugenics and smoking was also somewhat questionable.

 

[hlsmith]

Yeah they are renaming a lectureship at a Cali uni (maybe Stanford or a UC) from his name to something else.
He also stymied the progression of Bayesian stats and may have been one of those that didn't support Wright Sewell.

I believe Pearson had issues too.

 

[Dason]

I was definitely alluding toward Fisher. Pearson had issues as well for sure.

 

[katxt]

I had a lecturer who would qualify except for the bit about "contributed a lot to stats theory".

 

[katxt]

I was definitely alluding toward Fisher.

Ah ha! I see it now. Well done. You snuck in a post while I was away looking up the Fisher-Box quote. kat

 

[fed2]

eugenics is not really that bad. they studied eugenics for the same reason I study covid, research funding. Statisticians will do anything for a little research funding, nothing has changed in that respect. RA fisher is disagreeable, but thats also par for the course. Im thinking more like wife-beater or sex-pervert. Like this: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/2/11/blodgett-pool-arrest/

 

[Dason]

eugenics is not really that bad.

And the award for "worst take of the day" goes to...

 

[Buckeye]

I'm not sure how to respond. But, I try to assume people have the best intentions. And perhaps a misunderstanding of what that word means.

 

[fed2]

well i mean eugenics is bad, but the fact that they studied eugenics is just a product of their times.

 

[hlsmith]

I agree - near a time when evolution was just getting figured out and DNA yet to be discovered - the ideas around eugenics must have been fascinating. Though - forced sterilization is obviously a bad idea and I would imagine some may not have been thinking about regression to the mean either.

 

[Karabiner]

Racism and fascism is inherent in eugenics, from the very beginning with Galton.
They had a political agenda appearing as a scientific one.

We are not just "product of our times". Personal responsibility and scientific integrity
should guide our choices. The choices have consequences.

 

[spunky]

eugenics is not really that bad.

^^ WHAT...IN...THE...ACTUAL....F^^

 

[fed2]

oh fine. have it your way. So we'll add everyone born before 1972 to the stats bastards list, on suspicion of racist associations or existing in a general millieu of racism. So far the list:

Stats Basterds:
1) The alleged peter-peeper at Tufts.
2) Statisticians born before 1972
3) Spunky (you know what you did last summer)

What about modern bastards though, post 1972 (year racism ended in us).

 

[fed2]

Essay Idea: "Biostatistics: Eugenic's gift to modern science".