This is a citation that gives some pause, it has to be admitted.
Note though, that he won the Darwin medal ( in 1898 !) “For his work on the quantitative treatment of biological problems.”
On presumes that this related to his role in the foundation of modern statistical methods; “Pearson’s thinking underpins many of the ‘classical’ statistical methods which are in common use today.” So are we to renounce “Pearson’s Chi-squared test” ?
Once again we are caught up in the question of “the times”. The wikipedia biography cites Pearson’s commitment to idealism: “There are many signs,” he wrote, “that a sound idealism is surely replacing, as a basis for natural philosophy, the crude materialism of the older physicists.”
Aha! I bet you thought materialism was the enemy!
I’ve come across “idealism” before. It was popular in England in the 1930’s, and is one of those things that was not much spoken of after the war.
The citations in post 54 should give pause also, though they address a different comment.
So are we to renounce “Pearson’s Chi-squared test” ?
Which one of these relationships are not like the other?
1. Pearson wore shoes ~ Pearson was a eugenist.2. Pearson developed the chi squared test ~ Pearson was a eugenist.
3. Pearson was a Darwinian ~ Pearson was a eugenist.
Aha! I bet you thought materialism was the enemy!
There are many enemies of mankind, as you already know.
Huxley did not consider himself a materialist, even though everything he wrote gave the impression that he was. Pearson's philosophic views are somewhat clouded by a strong adherence to scientific irrationalism. Whatever it is that they meant by 'idealism' or 'not a materialist', it boils down to raving atheism and very little else.
If you want to know more about Pearson's philosophic views, download his book Ethic of Freethought from my FR page.