James Watson's racially charged interview is a big issue now. A friend of mine, who studies at Stanford, posted his experience at Dr. Watson's lecture at a bulletin board before. The friend said that he was digressing too much and he seemed not to know what he was saying. He must be too old to be an active scholar. And finally, he made such a mess! Old enough to retire...
I don't know what he found about the issue in genetics. According to news coverage, I highly doubt that he actually did find evidence to support his assertion. I started imagining how economists can handle this topic? If they want, economists probably can seamlessly reached the same result with a plenty of statistical evidence. What I want to say here is that statistics, which is the best tool of economists, is dangerous when it is used without being based on prudent theory. One can easily be deceived by statistics. It is scary. I don't really trust number or statistic result before listening to the theory under the statistical analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment