Statistical pseudoscience: eugenics creeps into economic debates

Statistical pseudoscience: eugenics creeps into economic debates

Some people invoke Francis Galton, a pioneer of statistics, to justify the idea that society must weed out the "less fit". The argument is nothing new: in the nineteenth century, social Darwinism provided "scientific" cover for racism. Now, in the twenty-first century, some self-styled experts are reviving the rhetoric of eugenics to defend exclusionary policies and deny social benefits.

The false rigour of numbers

Statistics is a tool, not an ideology. But when its conclusions are twisted to support an agenda, the result is pseudoscience. The utilitarian fallacy of the "greater good" — sacrificing some for the happiness of the majority — has historically been used to justify everything from colonialism to Nancy. And now it is being recycled in debates about pensions, migration or housing.

Galton, Darwin and the danger of oversimplifying

Galton believed that intelligence was inherited and that the state should promote the breeding of the "most capable". That idea, dressed up in mathematics, led to forced sterilisation policies in the twentieth century. Bringing it into today's economic debates is not only anachronistic but dangerous: it turns people into data that can be discarded.

The irony of the "man of science"

Those who wield statistics as dogma tend to ignore the fact that science advances by correcting itself. A linear regression does not prove causation, and a correlation coefficient does not legitimise discrimination. In economics, statistics used properly helps design policies that reduce inequality, not justify it.

The question that remains is: how much longer will we allow the disguise of science to sell exclusion as if it were pogre?