Correlation does not imply causation. While lead exposure may have something to do with it, an issue like the crime rate is driven by a number of complex factors.
Perfect example of why this type of analysis is ridiculous:
Perfect example of why this type of analysis is ridiculous:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
... Which is why, I suspect, the commenter you replied to won't believe it either. Sigh.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619054
Your "contribution" of repeating the phrase doesn't educate anybody, doesn't address the actual content of the article. It doesn't make your opinion invalid but it also doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the understanding of the article. It was also said several times before you deigned to enter the conversation and "educate" us about correlation.
This one, I can't dismiss so easily; I've read into the details of where this theory comes from via a few sources, and the correlations are rather more than just "this line goes up & then down where this other line also goes up & down".
I'd suggest the naysayers read into this one a bit more before dismissing it (though I do understand the reaction).
Does that make my opinion invalid?
I realize that my comment flies in the face of
the opinion of radical environmentalists.
Of course, with a die, we can weigh it, find its center of gravity, cut it poem, etc. that makes it easier to 'prove' what's the cause of our extraordinary luck.
Bu suppose we find that the die contains some mechanism that allows one to change its center of gravity. Then, we cannot be sure that all those '3 sixes in a row' throws were caused by a change in the center of gravity.
Here, the case is more difficult, because we cannot cut open the object of study.
Multiple correlations over different data sets, in the presence of an extremely plausible mechanism - we know for a fact what lead exposure does to developing brains - is as close as we ever really get to proving a causative link in this world.
Okay, accepting that as a working assumption for the argument: What does? It's not things happening together that implies it, it's not things not happening together that implies it - negative and positive correlation respectively - so what is it?
The only other explanation I can think of is an understanding of the underlying mechanism, but what's that understanding based on? It can't be understandings of underlying mechanisms all the way down - you have to acquire the data from observation at some point.