> This seems a bit handwavy to me The article gives a statistical measure of the sheer impossibility of such a large effect. That is the opposite of handwavy.

> This seems a bit handwavy to me The article gives a statistical measure of the sheer impossibility of such a large effect. That is the opposite of handwavy. > It essentially boils down to "the effect size is too big" For this type of effect, yes. Again, the article gives a comparison of what a large effect size looks like for comparison, to help grapple with the sheer impossibility. > but doesn't give alternative explanations. Alternative explanations aren't a necessary pre-requisite for debunking a theory. > Calling that a debunking is a stretch. To the contrary, this article perfectly illustrates what a stretch it is to claim the large negative effect the absence of lunch has on a judge's ruling.