The article relies on a logical fallacy which is often exploited by people who do not comprehend the correct use of it.
Logical Fallacy: “Correlation does not equal Causation”.
This is true, but very misleading to people who don’t actually study any topic in which the scientific method is utilized. More aptly stated “Correlation does not necessarily equal Causation.” The fallacy itself only stipulates an uncertainty principle in that datum provided does not prove a causal effect: until experimentation proves or disproves that the correlation is causal.
That’s why experimentation to determine causal effects is necessary.
People who do not understand this tend to throw out the Correlation/Causation fallacy in order to simply ignore any evidence supporting a possibility which they do not wish to capitulate to. It’s a way to simply ignore and suppress something inconvenient.
What they are essentially attempting to do is observe the apple falling on Newton’s head and exclaim “That means nothing, just because the apple dislodged from the tree and then hit you on the head doesn’t mean anything. Correlation does not equal causation.”
The so called “butterfly effect”, is a thought experiment in correlation verses causation: or so the anti-reason front would suggest. It’s actually false on it’s face because we know how much atmosphere can be displaced by a butterfly’s wings and we know what exterior pressure and gravity are, therefore we know how far that force moves. The butterfly pushes itself through the atmosphere: it doesn’t push space-time in the direction it wishes to go.
Leftists feminist academics and advocates have been pushing against reason, against knowledge, against the enlightenment, against logic and against the very concept of objective truth for a very long time. This article is just an example there of. They resorted to the “correlation does not equal causation” fallacy as a weapon to deny that which is objectively provable.
Since long term studies of booze-babes verse teetotaler-tots cannot actually be performed, ethically, you cannot gather long term datum absolutely proving beyond the slightest doubt that the booze-babes are getting hammered in the womb and coming out hung over and malformed far more often than the granola crunching vitamin sufficient teetotaler-tots – you cannot produce an absolute proof. You can show a probability: but not a proof.
It does not matter how great that probability is: you do not have an absolute proof because you cannot conduct the necessary studies required to generate it. So based upon that: the anti-reason corp of ideologues attempt to exclaim “correlation does not equal causation” as a means with which to attempt to discredit, invalidate and therefore ignore anything which they do not like.
Thank you Immanuel Kant for teaching imbeciles how to use the dialectics of reason, but not reason or logic itself, to undermine reason by means of dissembling and evasion: your death was not nearly painful enough.