[grobbyy]

It does, but only experiments who don't have a strong grounding in research methods.

Simpson's paradox is part of a broader problem: correlation does not imply causation. In practice, it's one of many problems with making decisions based on correlations.

In a randomized control trial, with a large random sample, the odds of Simpson's Paradox coming up are astronomically low.

Good statisticians WILL second-guess ANY conclusions based on post-hoc data analysis. To frame this in scientific jargon, exploratory data analysis and correlations are great at generating hypotheses, but those need to be confirmed with methods appropriate for confirmatory analysis.