Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
I still don`t agree that the article does provide any evidence. It provides evidence that goes against a genetic hypothesis, it highlights an interesting statistical correlation, but as the article currently stands I do not believe that it provides scientific evidence in support of the gateway hypothesis, and for the same problems that I have seen in other research into this topic. It proposes a cause and effect relationship that the data cannot legitimately support.
The article in itself has worth in that it suggests interesting further avenues for research, but that research must be done to put the article in context.
|
I think you're mincing words a little here ... surely calling this evidence an 'interesting statistical correlation' is not dissimilar to a newspaper printing a 'clarification' because it doesn't like to use the word 'correction'?
Evidence is evidence. Some evidence is deeply impressive and conclusive all by itself, other evidence is effective as part of a greater body of information. Perhaps the subject does call for further study, but I don't see any justification for attempting to call a spade an earth-moving implement, except to draw attention away from information that contradicts your own point of view.