> If you assert that a cluster of distinctive cancers is caused by the local chemical plant, pointing out that similar cancer clusters are cropping up other pla

> If you assert that a cluster of distinctive cancers is caused by the local chemical plant, pointing out that similar cancer clusters are cropping up other places nowhere near a chemical plant is an evidence-based rebuttal to your theory. That's a sweeping generalization — it's not a rebuttal if the cancers in question have multiple causative factors, as you seem implicitly to acknowledge in your very-next paragraph about "entirely different reasons" .... > “Historians” are, as a general matter, terrible at describing why things happen. They’re not data analyzers, they’re story tellers. Really? "I usually don't agree with historians' descriptions of why things happen" is not an acceptable definition of "historians are terrible at describing why things happen." (I don't know why you look down on story-tellers; as I'm sure you know professionally, narrative is often the best way to communicate a message, and the most persuasive teachers are typically great story-tellers.)