[mempko]

Think of it this way, the statistical tools they are using were invented by eugenicists to show differences between races. Seriously.

[nickff]

Which statistical tools? My understanding is that linear regression was invented to understand the movements of planets.

Even if the statistical tools were developed by eugenicists, does that mean we shouldn’t use them? How would you restrict their use?

[mempko]

Tools like statistical significance and correlation. These tools were developed by a known eugenicist R.A. Fisher to compare populations which is what Levitt and Donohue use here. Their table referencing Reyes work to tease out Lead and show abortion has more statistical significance uses the EXACT TOOLS that Fisher would use. These are tools used by charlatans who pushed IQ and other complete quack ideas on the general population.

All you have to do is study the mathematics to understand why. For example, why use correlation at all here? Correlation assumes a LINEAR relationship. No such justification is made in their paper of why a linear relationship should exist here.

Those pushing things like correlation to IQ have the same problem as IQ is a non-linear relationship. Are these ideas appropriate to other problems? Yes, correlation and statistical significance are useful tools when applied to the right problems. But they are not appropriate here.

Unfortunately most have a basic course in statistics and have no knowledge about the history of these tools. So they get convinced by charlatans who wow them with statistics.

Statistics are great tools to lie with because so few people understand what things like 'correlation' mean and things like statistical significance. So they see papers like this and get wowed.

Here is a good article from Nature about Fisher and his history on eugenics. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-020-00394-6)

In other words, justifying abortion as a way to control crime is disgusting and you can thread the needle from eugenics to Levitt and Donahue. Abortion should be justified on it's merits of reducing suffering of women, not some way to reduce crime.

[ziddoap]

While there's a lot of interesting information in your comment to unpack and look further into, I can't help but laugh that you managed to write all of that without answering the main question of the parent comment.

>Even if the statistical tools were developed by eugenicists, does that mean we shouldn’t use them?

[mempko]

I did answer it,

> Those pushing things like correlation to IQ have the same problem as IQ is a non-linear relationship. Are these ideas appropriate to other problems? Yes, correlation and statistical significance are useful tools when applied to the right problems. But they are not appropriate here.

[ziddoap]

You're right, you did. I must not have linked that 2nd last sentence there to the question.