Why care about the Dow? Why not?

Just listened to this Planet Money podcast all about hating on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Gist of it: the Dow Jones calculates its index in a weird (and most certainly nonsensical) way, and is an anachronism that must die. They also say that no market "professional" (quote added by me) ever talks about the dow, but measures like the S&P 500 and the Wilshire 5000 are far more sensible.

This strikes me as a criticism that distracts from the real issue, which is whether one should be using any stock market indicator as an indicator of anything. Sure, the Dow is "wrong" and the S&P 500 is more "right" in that they weight by market cap. Whatever. Take a look at this:

Incredible, profoundly thankful. In any case, in the event that I simply go to the neighborhood store and get a can brush, I'm presumably not too far-removed. Which is to state that the conveyance of "scores" for the latrine brush are most likely firmly stuffed and not especially separated—there is no anomaly can brush.  here's the correlation with the S&P 500 in terms of fluctuations:

So I think the onus is on the pundits to demonstrate that whatever distinctions there are between the S&P and the Dow are important as foreseeing something about the economy. Good fortunes with that.

Obviously, as a scholarly, far be it from me to denounce the significance of accomplishing something the correct way, regardless of the possibility that it has no down to earth profit :). All things considered, in the podcast, they ridicule how the Dow discusses its long verifiable dataset as an advantage, one that exceeds its to some degree senseless method of calculation. This strikes me as somewhat uncalled for. Given the exceptionally solid relationship between's the Dow and S&P 500, this in length track record is a HUGE resource, enabling one to influence verifiable surmisings approach to back in time (once more, to the degree that any of this stuff has meaning at any rate).
I think there are some lessons here for science. I think that it is of course important to calculate the right metric, e.g. TPM vs. FPKM. In any case, we should not dismiss the way that eventually, we need these measurements to reflect meaning. On the off chance that the correspondence between another "right" metric and a more established, defective one is extremely solid, at that point there's no from the earlier motivation to exclude comes about computed with more seasoned measurements, particularly if those distinctions don't change any *scientific* conclusions. Maybe that is self-evident, yet I have a feeling that I see this kind of thing a considerable measure.