Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would say the author of this article is dodgy and unreliable. Dr. Swan is a leader in her field and cites a ton of research in her book. This is just some random guy with a substack.

The book is mostly about phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals, and their effects on reproductive health. There is a ton of research on phthalates in humans, the negative correlation between exposure and sperm quantity/quality is undeniable. Do you want me to link to some studies on it? I would not mind, though it is an easy Google.



The article writer's committmemt to empiricism is so flimsy that he argues polling his buddies on Twitter is a valid form of empirical evidence: "Selection Bias Is A Fact Of Life, Not An Excuse For Rejecting Internet Surveys"

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fa...


That there is a correlation is not the issue. The issue is confounding.


> I would say the author of this article is dodgy and unreliable.

I mean I personally agree with this in general but Scott Alexander has many fans...


I’d say that’s more for ideological reasons than the quality of his analysis. He makes his otherwise questionable policy ideas very palatable to the educated techie class.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: