Yeah, I’m not exactly getting why BBC is wrong either. Re “statistical”, to me, it sort of implies all sources of error or variability were provably not presen

Yeah, I’m not exactly getting why BBC is wrong either. Re “statistical”, to me, it sort of implies all sources of error or variability were provably not present (prove a negative) and the only reason for a coincidental result was a statistical anomaly. What’s got to be far more likely is some unaccounted-for variable produced the coincidental result.