Skip to main content

View Diary: Rush Limbaugh is right about Jason Richwine, Ph.D. (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What amazes me (0+ / 0-)

    is the poor quality of the statistics.  This is a situation in which there is ample reason to expect a variety of interaction terms.  Yet there is not a single example, at least as far as I could tell of any kind of block design ANOVA, nested block design, or ANCOVA of any kind in the entire things.  Just a lot of patchwork dealing with questionable data and even more questionable analysis, mostly done by others and then summarized.

    The quality of "analysis" of potential genetic data, if one could even argue that it rises to the level of "analysis, that might bear of such questions is even more shocking.  There is no effort to control for potential phylogenetic effects, nor effort to examine what actual genetics is involved.  In fact, the author uses the term "hereditarians" to talk about geneticists, with no discussion of any molecular data that might support or refute such a thesis.  This isn't pathetic, its worse than pathetic.

    This reads more like a high school term paper than a Ph.D. thesis.  Either no one read this or there is seriously something wrong at Harvard.   They will need an official inquiry to get their credibility back.  It looks as if at least three faculty members are ready for the pasture, as whatever they might have had in the past has surely slipped away.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site