Asians at W&M

ttgiang15
Mon, 01 May 2006 23:27:30 +0000

First and foremost, the data used have to actually be representative of something. My contention was that the data used did not make sense from the very start. Therefore, any conclusions derived from it means absolutely nothing. The fact that you tell me my understandings of the conditions I have lived around all my life are “mere speculation” shows what you know. Could I supplement them with data? Yes, and here is where statistics would come in, but only if those statistics take into account that which actually makes sense with sound methodology. That has not been the case with what has been discussed in this thread. The statistics here, then, are based on nothing while I do have empirical evidence underlying my assumptions. While the information I shared may have been speculative (it’s not), it is worth more than numbers that started from nothing, attempts to show everything, but is of zero value.

Note: I never said sociology, in any way, supersedes statistics. Sociology, as a field, is reliant on statistics (so, it’s true when you say ‘sociology without hard numbers is mere speculation’). But, as has been the case throughout much of this thread, that was not my point. I explicitly wrote “I hope you consider infusing a little Sociology…” Infusion is integrating, integrating with the topic at hand- statistics. One must consider the validity and relevance of data used before one can play with numbers to produce reliable data. While the sources of the data used was valid (from government census), its has little relevance unless one actually considers those underlying conditions. Once again, and the reason I posted in the first place, the usage of relevant data has not been considered.