zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
I'm pleased to see the word "causation" reappear along with the word "science".

But I'm disappointed to see the word "proven". It isn't proven, and there are a number of problems.

One is that the hypothesis is never really tested, this is just more data analysis. I don't want to split hairs over the definition of "science" but if you don't have an experiment where you intervene in the real world and dispassionately record what happens, then it's probably not science.

The scientific method is a causation-finding machine intended to avoid all of the errors that humans are likely to make. Perhaps that leads to too few exciting results, so now we have a bunch of "scientific studies" instead.

>>jeff-d+Uk1
While it might not be a record of an experiment, it's a whole lot better in terms of data analysis than just someone's gut feeling. That last one was something I expected much more in the comments where people would just "well duh" this type of publication.

At the very least this data analysis shows something with a trace, instead of just throwing an idea out there and hoping someone builds a complete thesis around it and starts experimenting while everyone else is still guessing and having feelings but not getting anywhere concrete.