It then takes a step in the wrong direction by presenting the hypothesis as a scientific conclusion. Everyone has a hypothesis. Having a hypothesis doesn't make

It then takes a step in the wrong direction by presenting the hypothesis as a scientific conclusion. Everyone has a hypothesis. Having a hypothesis doesn't make it special or science based. Every anecdote driven article is presenting a hypothesis, and an awful lot of them Couch their anecdotes in potential scientific explanations to sound more credible. Theres not a need to do "more" science - there's a need to do basically any science. I'll grant that the societal context means that someone has to do more work and then present their findings in an equally engaging way (with the necessary anecdotes etc), but science based?