Over the years I have come across a number of interesting cases of historical slander, claims about famous people in the past that are demonstrably false. Correcting them not only eliminates false information about the victims of slander it also provides useful information about its authors.
When I saw this in my email, I did not realize it was an article, so for a moment I thought you had just cold emailed me to accuse you of slandering you--gave me quite a shock for a moment.
You should not trust any of my books in the sense of concluding that because I say something it must be true. I don't think there is anything in any of my nonfiction books that I did not believe was true when I wrote it but there is one bit in the original printing of _Law's Order_, describing reputational enforcement in the diamond industry, that was from memory and wrong. I corrected it in the second printing, probably the paperback.
My personal bugbear in this department is people saying that Plato's Republic is fascist. It seems to go back to Karl Popper...Benjamin Jowell ,a 19th century translator , thought it was communist. Which I don't agree with either...but beware of summary opinions
Galton argued for positive eugenics, encouraging talented people to marry and have kids. I do not believe he ever argued for negative eugenics, doing things to prevent the less talented from reproducing.
My preferred version of eugenics, proposed by Heinlein in an early novel, is one that lets a couple select from the children they could have which ones they do have by selecting on both sperm and ovum. His technology for doing so doesn't exist yet but a more primitive version, selecting which fertilized ovum to implant, does.
Both of their ideas were used to support atrocities and mass sterilizations. The difference is Galton died before his ideas were abused, where as Ehrlich is still very much alive and unrepentant. Also, guess which one is being cancelled.
Thanks. I just added a comment to that, pointing out that by the time the second edition of _The Population Bomb_ was published Norman Borlaug had received a Nobel prize for his work, so the claim that Ehrlich's recommendations were correct in the context of the information available to him is false, at least with regard to the second edition.
Galton is tarred with that label and its modern connotations. The dishonor is on those who do so, not on the the man no longer alive to defend himself against such defamation.
Why would Francis Galton and his long list of significant accomplishments and groundbreaking analyses NOT be a household name in Mr. Friedman's household? Is Mr. Friedman unaware of statistical regression to the mean, or the heritability of various traits (including, alas, hemophilia) through family descent?
You're the one asserting Galton's primary identity as one with severely negative connotations in today's social environment. You then place the mark of Cain on the man by your insinuation of his unfitness to be read, understood, and judged based on his own writings in his own time rather than by yours here and now. Despicable.
I doubt an anonymous internet commenter can place the mark of Cain on anyone. That said, i am under the impression that Galton has been extremely controversial since long before I was born.
When I saw this in my email, I did not realize it was an article, so for a moment I thought you had just cold emailed me to accuse you of slandering you--gave me quite a shock for a moment.
So, how much of your book should I now trust?
You should not trust any of my books in the sense of concluding that because I say something it must be true. I don't think there is anything in any of my nonfiction books that I did not believe was true when I wrote it but there is one bit in the original printing of _Law's Order_, describing reputational enforcement in the diamond industry, that was from memory and wrong. I corrected it in the second printing, probably the paperback.
My personal bugbear in this department is people saying that Plato's Republic is fascist. It seems to go back to Karl Popper...Benjamin Jowell ,a 19th century translator , thought it was communist. Which I don't agree with either...but beware of summary opinions
Galton is known as the father of eugenics. He is probably a household name, in some households, but likely not in your household.
Galton argued for positive eugenics, encouraging talented people to marry and have kids. I do not believe he ever argued for negative eugenics, doing things to prevent the less talented from reproducing.
My preferred version of eugenics, proposed by Heinlein in an early novel, is one that lets a couple select from the children they could have which ones they do have by selecting on both sperm and ovum. His technology for doing so doesn't exist yet but a more primitive version, selecting which fertilized ovum to implant, does.
There's a great article by Scott Alexander comparing Galton to Ehrlich.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/galton-ehrlich-buck
Both of their ideas were used to support atrocities and mass sterilizations. The difference is Galton died before his ideas were abused, where as Ehrlich is still very much alive and unrepentant. Also, guess which one is being cancelled.
Thanks. I just added a comment to that, pointing out that by the time the second edition of _The Population Bomb_ was published Norman Borlaug had received a Nobel prize for his work, so the claim that Ehrlich's recommendations were correct in the context of the information available to him is false, at least with regard to the second edition.
Galton is tarred with that label and its modern connotations. The dishonor is on those who do so, not on the the man no longer alive to defend himself against such defamation.
So you're saying it is libel?
Why would Francis Galton and his long list of significant accomplishments and groundbreaking analyses NOT be a household name in Mr. Friedman's household? Is Mr. Friedman unaware of statistical regression to the mean, or the heritability of various traits (including, alas, hemophilia) through family descent?
You're the one asserting Galton's primary identity as one with severely negative connotations in today's social environment. You then place the mark of Cain on the man by your insinuation of his unfitness to be read, understood, and judged based on his own writings in his own time rather than by yours here and now. Despicable.
I doubt an anonymous internet commenter can place the mark of Cain on anyone. That said, i am under the impression that Galton has been extremely controversial since long before I was born.
Yes. The question is whether for good or bad reasons.