> Science isn't about finding correlation. It's about identifying causal links Science is fundamentally about finding correlations. We measure things we think

> Science isn't about finding correlation. It's about identifying causal links Science is fundamentally about finding correlations. We measure things we think are interesting to measure, and try to see if it matches our models and theories. The study found a correlation in their data, and that correlation is real. If that is where that study ends then it's still a valid study. Other papers could apply some more complex statistics to make a guess at the cause, or an aggregate study can take data from a collection of previous studies to re-process the data for new insights. The "scientific consensus" ends up being what the largest samples studies with good statistical rigor seem to agree on. But that always ends up murky to use in court. "Published paper says X" is usually where most popular science ends, and in this case they're right. "Scientific consensus" is pretty clear that the cause is likely viral infection during pregnancy, but scientific consensus isn't written down anywhere as scientific consensus. We've been fighting for 30 years about MMR and autism, which was a single retracted study discredited by every study since. And how we're gonna somehow discuss in courts about the correct statistical model to explain a real correlation.