Do you mean faulty, logic, or faulty, supporting evidence? I think if something is plausible, but unsupported by evidence, the logic can be sound, but the supporting evidence faulty; but if something is implausible, then it would be the logic that was faulty and to me it seems like that crime and behavioral changes are caused by lead is certainly plausible, so I don’t think it’s a logical failure here. It may just be a failure of the evidence.
So.. How do you know the evidence is faulty, though? I mean, can you definitively prove it’s faulty? if you can’t, then you have to consider there’s a possibility that it’s causal?
See above. The Vox article made this seem like logic around the hypothesis is more faulty than it probably is, given other replies.
I understand my meaning might've confused HN commenters but I genuinely feel that the intent of my words in the initial comment is intuitive, and don't have time or bandwidth to argue about the semantics. I am sorry for the confusion. I obviously can't definitively prove it is faulty, and was merely trying (likely incorrectly so) to summarize the believed veracity of the hypothesis.
I thought that's what you were doing, intuitively, and I wasn't attacking you. I know how it can feel that way. It's more like a jumping off point for other commenters to hop onto, a group conversation if you will, but the threaded nature does make it look like a direct challenge/reply to you.
You know you can't be sorry for other people's confusion tho, right? That might be some semantics for you! :) haha
Have a good day and thanks for sharing this interesting ref!
That might not be the case though (?), see https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le... from the other reply