Threads of statistical history

• Cryptography: Al-Khalīl, 750, Al-Kindi, 800, Ibn ’Adlan, 1200
• Gambling: Bernoulli, 1700, de Moivre, 1718
• Astronomy/physics: Laplace, 1780, Adrain, 1800, Gauss, 1800
• Public health: Quetelet, 1835, Nightingale, 1850

The “birth of modern statistics”

Galton’s science

Karl Pearson and the Biometrics Laboratory

• developed the correlation coefficient and the chi-squared test; early use of the \(p\)-value

• head of the first Department of Applied Statistics, as the Galton chair of Eugenics

• focus on “biometry”: statistical theory of biological measurements, especially evolution and inheritance.

• had a lengthy feud with Udny Yule over the correct definition of the correlation coefficient for a \(2\times 2\) table

RA Fisher

• developed ANOVA, F-distribution, methods for maximum likelihood, lots of evolutionary theory

• Galton chair of Eugenics, succeeding K. Pearson

1. What’s up with this connection to eugenics?

2. How can we reconcile these people being very smart about some things but not about others?

3. Has this history had an impact on how we do statistics?

Now, if you are going to take Darwinism as your theory of life and apply it to human problems, you must not only believe it to be true, but you must set to, and demonstrate that it actually applies. […] It was not a light task, but it gave for many years the raison d’etre of my statistical work.

Who gets to “direct”?

PSA: eugenics is a bunch of bullshit

Others

Bystanders:

• William Gosset (\(t\)-test): focused on practical applications

• Egon Pearson (hypothesis testing): pushed to separate statistics and eugenics departments

Opponents:

• Lancelot Hogben: biologist, opponent of eugenics

• Thomas Morgan: biologist, opponent of eugenics

Pearson and tuberculosis

• caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis

• occurs more often among relatives

• major risk factors: silicosis (30x), malnutrition, smoking, alcoholism, crowding

• minor: genetics (mostly immune-related)

• niacin deficiency

• was common among poor Americans in the early 1900s

• … since corn lacks niacin unless nixtamalized.

Davenport: it’s hereditary!

Fisher and smoking

• Hill & Doll: retrospectively compare cancer rates between matched smoking/nonsmoking pairs

• Hill & Doll: prospectively compare cancer rates between smoking/nonsmoking doctors

• etcetera

• Fisher: Correlation is not causation. Let’s calmly study this a while longer.

So the argument goes:

\(p\)-values and hypothesis tests focus on whether there’s a difference between groups,

A small methodological fix:

More important than statistical technique:

• What questions are being asked?

• What data is being collected? (and how)

• What assumptions are being made?

• What are the important conclusions?

Looking forward

Some sources

• How Eugenics Shaped Statistics, by Aubrey Clayton
• Eugenics and Statistics, by Nathaniel Joselson
• Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930, by Donald MacKenzie
• National life from the standpoint of science, by Karl Pearson
• RA Fisher and the science of hatred, New Statesmen, by Richard J Evans
• Empire of Guns, by Priya Satia
• Fisher and lung cancer, Priceonomics

It is a false view of human solidarity, a weak humanitarianism, not a true humanism, which regrets that a capable and stalwart race of white men should replace a dark-skinned tribe which can neither utilize its land for the full benefit of mankind, nor contribute its quota to the common stock of human knowledge.