The most interesint paragaph is at the end: "More important, as Dr. Grim pointed out, the study documents a correlation between beer drinking and scientific pe

The most interesint paragaph is at the end: "More important, as Dr. Grim pointed out, the study documents a correlation between beer drinking and scientific performance without explaining any correlation." So, it documents a correlation without explaining it, so maybe there is no correlation. You cann't take two facts and say there is a correlation, may be it simply a coincidence. Maybe the difference is not the beer but the time spent in bars. Maybe the scientists that get less papers publisheds are depressed and go to drink beer to forget their bad performance. How can people publish a fallacy like that and be so happy?