> No, you were saying it's inherently dubious without either statistical or physical evidence. Yes, exactly, because at least counting the crabs and comparing

> No, you were saying it's inherently dubious without either statistical or physical evidence. Yes, exactly, because at least counting the crabs and comparing the count with other clusters of crabs would show whether there 'is something'. Missing accuracy is not my problem, it's missing 'there is something' vs. 'there is nothing'. Without any statistical data, there is nothing to talk about, not in biology either, which is also science. Skepticism is very important. I challenge them to count crabs on cables and compare with crab counts not on cables, and then make a case. That's all.