this article is disingenuous, esp for the hn crowd. it explains the difference between causality and causation (ok kids), and talks about how we need to underst

this article is disingenuous, esp for the hn crowd. it explains the difference between causality and causation (ok kids), and talks about how we need to understand probability, without actually talking about probability. utlimately though the problem with the article is that its vacuous: the question it purports to address, 'why do synthetic chemicals seem more toxic'? is not actually addressed, other than to say that "toxicity depends on dose" (a comprehensive comparison is impossible). so a casual reading of it implies the assumption is wrong (ie, natural chemicals are equally or more toxic. it does remind us that the top toxic substances are natural). sure, but is that useful? on a supercial level, yes even the word "chemical" sounds "toxic" to a layperson. add another "sciency" word like "synthetic" on top (vs the beautiful imagery a word like "nature-al" evokes) and of course the synthetic "seems more toxic". i summed it up in two sentences. yes, the layperson would be wrong. but why an article? the significant reality to those with some education on the subject, which was alluded to, but not addressed, has to do with doses. where are most humans actually exposed to toxins? via agriculture? so is there a difference between organic and non organic practises? this is left to the reader. there is, but its not what you think. i cant help but think there is an ulterior motive for publishing this scientific-sounding article in a business magazine, or perhaps the student who wrote it is just.. well.. procrastinating on a paper.