Strictly speaking, there is no “actual casual evidence” for anything, because there is hardly any stable definition for what casual evidence exactly is. Establi

Strictly speaking, there is no “actual casual evidence” for anything, because there is hardly any stable definition for what casual evidence exactly is. Establishment of causality is commonly considered as requiring repetition and probabilistic reasoning. In plain words, it’s your guess against theirs, except they had done research and published a paper with a claim and you are simply saying they are not rigorous enough. Could you point to more rigorous support of your claim?