You really want to measure life expectancy for people entering working age to avoid measuring infant mortality. Those numbers sound like they don't take that into account.
In logic, providing even one counter-example is considered refutation. Its tempting to do that with social/medical fields too. You're right its not statistically significant, but its absolutely, certainly data. An organism CAN survive extreme conditions, even thrive.
For example, claims of necessary action based on real statistical data are unwarranted. The existence of populations that thrive in the so-called 'unhealthy environment' do show there are more variables at work. Who's trumpeting "we should all work like 1800's laborers for good health!"? Nobody, but not because its not true. Because we're lazy-ass modern narcissists who want a quick fix.
lasthemy|13 years ago
mcguire|13 years ago
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
JoeAltmaier|13 years ago
For example, claims of necessary action based on real statistical data are unwarranted. The existence of populations that thrive in the so-called 'unhealthy environment' do show there are more variables at work. Who's trumpeting "we should all work like 1800's laborers for good health!"? Nobody, but not because its not true. Because we're lazy-ass modern narcissists who want a quick fix.