This is not a meaningful contribution to the conversation. If you'd read the comments and replies made before you posted perhaps you'd have been able to contribute something other than the trite "correlation does not imply causation" which may just be the most obnoxious phrase on the internet today.
I strongly disagree with the article for one reason: Correlation does not imply causation. That is what I said. I realize that my comment flies in the face of the opinion of radical environmentalists. Does that make my opinion invalid?
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.
It doesn't address the content of the article? Apparently you did not read the article. It specifically is trying to say that the correlation between crime rate and removal of lead from gasoline is attributable to it (e.g. caused by it). I strongly disagree with it. That's what I said.
There's plenty of more strongly correlated suggestions for the drop in crime than TEL: legalized abortion, drug trends, law enforcement, on and on. Common sense would put TEL at hypothesized causation reason # 10 or so.
There's a strange battle going on in this discussion, but honestly -- I dismiss a lot of quasi-scientific articles that put a lot of importance on correlation without addressing a ton of alternate explanations.
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).
Do opinions become somehow more correct just because they are contrary to the 'popular' view? Statements like:
I realize that my comment flies in the face of
the opinion of radical environmentalists.
are not part of a constructive conversation. Did the parent post claim to be a radical environmentalist? Are you trying to passive-aggressively claim that the poster is a radical environmentalist? If neither of these are true, then what was the point of that statement?
Since my objection to the very premise of the article (that premise being that a reduction in environmental exposure to lead caused a drop in crime rates) seems to be his primary objection to my comment, yes, I am saying he or she is quite invested in radical environmentalism.
