[mjburgess]

It's extraordinary that an article of this kind beings, "When we are interested in cause and effect relationships ... we have two options" and omits the option most characteristic of science.

Given there's a tremendous amount of reputational damage that has been done to science by those who have omit from their practice of science, science, I don't have much patience for this omission.

If one wants to educate an informed reader on the scientific method, you ought begin with a setup of the "problem of science" (that of causes, effects and their controls) that makes it clear that these far less reliable methods are indeed, far less reliable.

What this article does, instead, is claim the opposite. It omits the ideal case where science is possible, then proceeds to claim a status for randomisation (as a method) far above what it's capable of --

[throwaway19972]

"Science" is not a thing in itself, or it's at the very least heavily polysemous and vague. It's a collection of institutions, processes, methodologies, and cultures that can sometimes, under the right conditions produce greater collective certainty about the universe. It's not a magic wand that works great when measuring physical processes but goes flaccid when empirical measurement gets difficult. In fact, that's why it's such a valuable concept and is clearly distinct from "magic".

Just because you prefer "hard science" because it's easier to control variables doesn't give you license to push your pet definition (notably, not provided) and value-judgements about the word onto other people. (Or at least—taking this license destroys your own credibility.) Doing so does just as much reputational damage to the aforementioned institutions, processes, methodologies, and cultures than people who try to draw too much certainty from poorly controlled variables.

What ever happened to nuance and understanding? C'mon! I believe you're capable of better. This kind of rancid tone has no place in serious discussion.