Part of me wants to debate this, point our correlation does not equal causation and ask for better evidence. (yeah, I know, cheap attempt at last word) But ult

Part of me wants to debate this, point our correlation does not equal causation and ask for better evidence. (yeah, I know, cheap attempt at last word) But ultimately we probably won't be persuading each other and at this point the debate is useless. I've pointed out my problems with the article, and together we've at least distilled the problem people like we will have with the article (well stated by guylhem). I don't think much more progress can be made :) My critical reasoning and logic prof from Uni always said that logic is a fine thing for enhancing discourse but if you start with different world views, different axioms, no amount of logic can bridge that, it's just a tool for fixing smaller disputes. Thank's at least for more concisely summing up :)