We know that lead exposure causes cognitive and behavioral problems. That's not in question. You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean leaded gas caused the problem, but when a known cause is paired with an observable correlation, causality is a reasonable conclusion.
We know that lead exposure causes cognitive and behavioral problems. That's not in question. You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean leaded gas caused the problem, but when a known cause is paired with an observable correlation, causality is a reasonable conclusion.
I don't see that it is ever reasonable to use correlation to argue for causation.
Look, I'll admit that I have little respect for soft sciences, because unlike in physics where the universe is the arbiter of truth, there is no arbiter of truth in soft sciences. They are completely based upon correlation and probabilities. There is no scientific method in soft sciences.
We know that lead exposure causes cognitive and behavioral problems. That's not in question. You're right that it doesn't necessarily mean leaded gas caused the problem, but when a known cause is paired with an observable correlation, causality is a reasonable conclusion.
I don't see that it is ever reasonable to use correlation to argue for causation.
Look, I'll admit that I have little respect for soft sciences, because unlike in physics where the universe is the arbiter of truth, there is no arbiter of truth in soft sciences. They are completely based upon correlation and probabilities. There is no scientific method in soft sciences.