[lutusp]

> This is not hugely different ...

You're missing the crucial distinction between describing and explaining. A correlation is a description, and descriptions aren't science. Only by proposing an explanation, then testing it, do we enter the domain of science. We also have the chance to turn a correlation into something more than a coincidence.

[dllthomas]

"The article is simply reporting a correlation, which is not good science" is a separate objection from "predicts implies causation, and none exists here." The latter was what I was objecting to; specifically the first part.

If you want to separately discuss the former, I don't have a strong opinion about it any which way. We do need to document correlations somewhere, because 1) they are a useful starting point when looking for causal relationships, and 2) we might be able to make use of them before we understand why they work. We do need some quality controls to ensure that we are finding correlations that really exist, and I don't see a problem with using the infrastructure around "properly" scientific experiment to this end, but if you propose we move it somewhere else or simply call it something else I don't see any big problems with that.