I think you're trying to argue (in multiple responses) that the evidence in the article doesn't rule out all other hypotheses, so we shouldn't take it as proof.

I think you're trying to argue (in multiple responses) that the evidence in the article doesn't rule out all other hypotheses, so we shouldn't take it as proof. Sure. It's not a formal proof. It's a narrative of a general pattern that we might want to learn from. If we can learn from narratives that are completely false - raganwald's excellent posts come to mind - then surely we can learn from narratives that are not scientifically rigorous.