Yes, because the article states that the damaged portion of his brain was responsible for his OCD, which was a simple statement of fact, given that his OCD disa

Yes, because the article states that the damaged portion of his brain was responsible for his OCD, which was a simple statement of fact, given that his OCD disappeared once the damage occurred. But from this one case we can still extrapolate a very useful line of inquiry. It's almost like when you infer a single number in a Sudoku puzzle and the rest of the numbers become obvious after that, like a domino effect.