[rcar]

Agreed with all points. I often find that these sorts of observational studies with weak methods that provide evidence for something the unblinded study participants would want to support (e.g., this study, observational studies of the effect of reduced workweek hours on productivity, many of the observational basic income studies) are really hard to evaluate fairly. It becomes easy to latch onto the conclusions when the intervention is one you're predisposed to believe in and to latch onto the methodological weaknesses when it's one you start of opposed towards, and so I feel like they don't really advance science forward at all.

[danmcs]

I think it's useful to think of studies like this as a MVP. They're relatively cheap and fast. If they give a null result, you've failed fast. If they give a non-null, then you can invest in further study and iterate.

[emteycz]

As opposed to a MVP, such study can give you any results you want.

[throwaway_pdp09]

They provide dirty data but cheaply which can be used to prod a more rigorous study into life. So they do advance science. It isn't all sterile test tubes and lab coats, at the coal face it gets mucky, it has to.