4 ms·
Responding to your 1: “failed to support” doesn’t mean that they found evidence that contradicted the lead crime hypothesis. The data they found is entirely con
by veridies 9y ago
Responding to your 1: “failed to support” doesn’t mean that they found evidence that contradicted the lead crime hypothesis. The data they found is entirely consistent with the lead crime hypothesis; it’s just that it’s within the realm of possiblity (5%ish chance) that this data would emerge even if the lead crime hypothesis were false. So they’re “failing” to support the lead hypothesis when they’re exercising that scientific caution which encourages false negatives instead of false positives; that doesn’t mean we ought to do the same.
- dmix 9y agoAt most you could say it doesnt disprove his lead/crime hyptothesis but looking at the data and charts he cherry picked (yes I read both closely) it only very weakly coorelates to his worldview. He even opens the article saying the lead levels were drasrically lower then continues to pretend that it was comparable data to the previous US geographic set. If the author was a good scientist he'd conclude more studies from a broader population need to be done. But ultimately just because he acknowledged bias doesnt mean he effectively accounted for it in his analysis. There's a good reason the authors of the study took the position they did.