[sbuttgereit]

I imagine that the authors are so likely to be aware of this fact that you can take for granted that they are.

Having said that, there is absolutely a valid question of did they incorrectly rationalize their approach, or rely on studies that did so, such that they in their own minds thought they addressed the issue when in reality they hadn't. My sense is that parent comment to which you replied probably didn't read the study, the original studies, or consider the point I'm making (sounds like a shot from the hip after reading the title), but the viewpoint isn't necessarily invalid.

Given that some authors have a very real and emotional attachment to ideas they are trying to prove out in such studies... the rationalization error is one to watch for...

[sykick]

What you say is true. I like the way you phrased things. What you write about the authors potentially having a bias that blinds them is nicely put. If someone has reason to think this I’d welcome reading their commentary.

I am tired with people just saying that correlation does not always imply causation. As if this is somehow insightful. Whenever I see this I think less of the person who writes it. It’s as if they don’t have enough common sense to assume that authors of a study that relies on statistical analysis don’t know this.