Well it's fair to say that experiment shows causation but no I don't think you can say the correlation shows it works. I think it goes against the definition of the word.....
I found the article too dense to get as well, but I do think 'perhaps' we could use correlation more to assume causation. I think we are too cautious and certainly the haters always bring in correlation to stop science articles they think don't follow their beliefs. Not sure if that's compatible with the OP or not, it hurt my head.
> it's fair to say that experiment shows causation
No, that experiment doesn't show causation.
> I do think 'perhaps' we could use correlation more to assume causation. I think we are too cautious
Why do you think that? Is it because you think that science is moving too slowly (thus wasting time and money)? Is it because you think that good results are mistakenly discarded?
"using correlation more to assume causation" should produce results more quickly, both correct and incorrect. Do you understand the costs of incorrect results? First, incorrect results can have negative consequences for the consumers: for example, drugs that have harmful impacts and no beneficial ones for the people taking them (in addition to the cost of the drug, and the opportunity cost of not doing something else known to be beneficial). Second, time is wasted following up incorrect results and work based on incorrect results would be worthless. Third, the incorrect results would have to be overturned (and this communicated to everybody who had taken them as correct).
I think deciding whether to "use correlation more to assume causation" needs to take into account the costs and benefits of incorrect results, as well as the costs and benefits of correct results. Do you have any data on this? (unfortunately, I do not)
> certainly the haters always bring in correlation to stop science articles they think don't follow their beliefs
Can you support this accusation with examples of it happening to articles that actually do a good job of showing their result is something more than a correlation? Or are you saying that this happened to articles that just present a correlation?
I found the article too dense to get as well, but I do think 'perhaps' we could use correlation more to assume causation. I think we are too cautious and certainly the haters always bring in correlation to stop science articles they think don't follow their beliefs. Not sure if that's compatible with the OP or not, it hurt my head.