Temporal (Monthly) Distribution of Death

¶ … temporal (monthly) distribution of death by the two extremes of human behavior, suicide and homicide..." (p.85)

This comparison is intended to relate to the significance of another correlation and factor; namely "environmental physics activity" which includes" solar, geomagnetic and cosmic - ray monthly indices." (Stoupel et al., 85)

Therefore there are four main variables in the study. These include suicide and homicide rates and their correlation to aspects of geophysical activity as well as the correlation of these aspects over time. Other variables that are also considered are, of necessity, the relationship of homicide and suicide to other factors in the environment, such as accidents as well as stroke, heart disease etc., and the way these are distributed over time as well.

In the analysis of this article from a scientific point-of-view, it will be shown that while this study relates different factors such as suicide and homicide to external environmental factors, it does not present an entirely convincing case on a number of scientific and academic levels. As will be discussed, there are too many areas where valid and scientific questions have not been answered and where there is a wider range of possibilities in the variables used, which have not been adequately dealt with.

2. Assessment

2.1. Sources

In terms of the issue of relevance, the date of the research and writing of this paper is reasonably contemporary, with the study published in 2005. It was presented in a peer reviewed journal which adds to its verifiability. The authors are also seemingly writing for a standpoint of academic professionalism, as is indicated by the level of their status and achievements.

However on a more critical note, the data sample that was used was fairly restricted and regionally bound; with no account of the various factors that necessitated this restricted database of sources. One of the central criticisms in this study is that not enough attention has been given to comparative studies of similar areas of concern. There is therefore a certain amount of doubt as to whether the data sample is sufficiently representative of the entire population, in order to draw results that fully support the main hypothesis.

2.2. Argument

The central argument and hypothesis is in reality an extrapolation and extension of studies and findings in other areas that relate to the possible causes of rates of suicide and homicide. The argument makes passing reference to various theories and research that relate to the central hypothesis but this is cursory and not extensive enough to strongly support the main argument. Simply stated the central argument is that homicide and suicide rates both show a significant correlation over time and tend to coincide within certain time frames or periods. On the basis of this correlation is it suggested that there is a possibility that geophysical and extra - sociological events such as cosmic-rays can have an effect on suicide and homicide rates.

This hypothesis is essentially based on deductive reasoning which is extrapolated for other studies; for example the view that depression can lead to cardiovascular pathology points to the assumption that external influences can be a determining factor in rates of suicide as well as homicide. This is a fairly well accepted and common view that is used as a starting point by the researchers to compare the possible influences of geophysical and solar activity on the rates and incidence of suicide and homicide within a given area. This approach suggests the possibly that the error of inferring causation from correlation is being made in this study. This aspect will be explored further in the following sections. This is also related to the question of whether there is not a fallacy in assuming that what occurs in one field or area is necessarily the same in another

The central argument is therefore based on prior suggestions and findings from other research which attempt to account for factors that can affect suicide and homicide rates. For example, reference is made to studies that have posited that environmental factors, just as well as social or other causative triggers, affect the rate and distribution suicide and homicide occurrences. The author notes the connection between serotonin production and environmental physical aspects. (Stoupel et al., 85)

The argument in the study goes on to suggest, via these references, that there is a correlation between suicide and homicide over time and in certain time periods. This would tend to suggest, albeit in a relatively obscure way, that there is some factor or factors which is a causative element in this correlation when time is taken into account. The authors deduce therefore, from these correlations that geophysical activities play a central role in the rates and distribution of suicide and homicide. "In our study it was shown that not only are homicide and suicide rates correlated by time...but also that both tragic events are linked to environmental physical activity...." (Stoupel et al., 87) the authors state clearly and categorically that, "Our data indicates that cosmic rays are involved in physical and behavioral aspects of human physiology and behavior regulation." (Stoupel et al., 87)

The above argument raises a number of concerns. Not least is the lack of clarity on the difference between proximate and distal causation. There is little evidence in the research that this aspect has been taken into account. This leads to many other crucial issues that are not dealt with adequately in the paper.

For instance, to what extent are the environmental and geophysical factors relevant in terms of the myriad aspects which impact on the other central variables in this study? There has not been adequate attention given to the interaction between variables such as homicide and suicide rates and other influencing variables, which would include social and psychological issues. For example, there is only cursory reference made to the social and political issues that would have impacted on the sample group and within that particular time period.

In essence the central critique of the argument of this paper, and a critique which also extends to other areas of the analysis, must be the fact that too many variables are included that is not delimited or explained well enough in terms of pervious studies and other relevant criteria. Simply put, there are too many aspects that are left unexplained or poorly defined.

In other words, while the research raises an interesting possibility which may or may not have relevance to the understanding of suicide and homicide, this research fails to take into account of the various alternative causes and variables affecting the main issues.

One also has to question the generalization of homicide and suicide and the bracketing these two categories with the same general view. This would tend to ignore the very real differences and the many variables that separate suicide from homicide.

This criticism also leads to the critique that almost no reference in the study is made to contradictory evidence and this is not weighed up in the analysis of the findings. Finally the paper's central argument also fails to define its terms clearly and to demarcate the parameters the study in clear and unequivocal scientific terminology.

2.3. Methodology

The central source used in the study was from the National database of Lithuania. This tends to give the data some verifiability and foundation. The methodology however relies on data which, while somewhat obscure, is verified from established sources; such as the National Geophysical and National Spacer Service Centers, and others. Data from these sources were compared to local suicide rates and homicide distribution. Statistical methods, including the Pearson correlation coefficient were used to analyze these different data sources.

The statistical charts produced provided an adequate overview of the various arguments relating to the central hypothesis. The tables also distinguished between male and female incidents of homicide and suicide; and are compared in terms of time distribution.

While these statistics go some way to providing a basis for the hypothesis of the study, a central criticism of this study is that there are too many variables within the data and the categories that are not accounted for or dealt with in the methodology and the theoretical arguments. Numerous examples of these have already been mentioned in the previous section. Therefore in terms of a critique of the methodology one could say in general that the methodology used does not provide for a wide enough or representative analyses of the data. This could have been improved by the incorporation of other studies and data and a comparison of the various results and views.

2.4. Analysis and discussion

The final analysis and finding which ends the short and rather informal discussion is as follows: "....it was demonstrated that cosmic-ray activity plays a role in the regulation of human homeostasis and behavior." (Stoupel et al., 87) in fact this is not the case. What the article and the central argument supported by the methodology do show is that there is a possibility that this hypothesis might be true.