Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
I'm sure we'd both agree that science is about criticisms, or the so-called "peer-review". So how are you going to answer, if they say "Well that's just correlation, not causation"? We simply don't know if the correlation actually has anything to do with it, or not.

Statistics are by definition, correlation. If you want causation, then you'd have to come up with explanatory theories.
1) The explanatory theory is Model A and the theory of dual elements attracting, related to physics and mathematics.

2) It's not theories alone that account for causation, but experimentation. With repeated, peer-reviewed results yes. And lo and behold, we have the operationalised types and repeatable methods ready for them at this point!

And I will eat my turds before I agree with you on anything like this here.