Jerry, I see your point about "importance". Maybe it isn't too important. Still, these are MDs, Dentists, Medical Researchers active in labs, some working with people on NIH grants. So, I would hope they get some of the history of science on human subjects. Maybe that isn't my role.
Thanks for discussing with me, Warren Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > Warren wrote: > > > I can't agree, though, that Eugenics isn't important since it did > > have a role to play in shaping history...birth control, immigration, > > science in the public interest, etc. > > The question for me is "important with respect to what or for what > reason". I can say that in 30 years of teaching introductory > statistics courses, I've never felt the urge to raise the issue of > eugenics. That's for *introductory* statistics courses. I can't see > how it would make the students appreciate the material any better. > There could easily be other courses where such a discussion would be > beneficial. I'm always willing to learn. > > FWIW, I do spend a bit of time on the history of the use of the 0.05 > level of significance. Silly me, I think it will give students some > insight as to why we do things the way we do them. They yawn at > that, too. . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
