I think parent was getting at the classical problem of using a scientific result to justify a policy. The problem is that no statistic (not even the proof of a

I think parent was getting at the classical problem of using a scientific result to justify a policy. The problem is that no statistic (not even the proof of a causal link) is enough to justify a policy. A policy is also about the question "what should be". How much do you value each of the conflicting goals - silence trolls vs hear every opinion? The problem is when people think they can answer this kind of question with logistic regression, too.