Wally, deal with it: there is no proof.
I never said there is any scientific method compliant proof. My pointing out a series of strong correlations is not my attempt at scientific method compliant proof of anything nor claiming I have scientific method compliant proof of anything.
you yourself are blabbering about correlation while making causal statements.
I never made any causal statements. I'm well aware of the fact that correlation isn't scientific method compliant proof. What you're seemingly unaware of is that a lack of scientific method compliant proof of something does not prove it wrong nor prove it's opposite.
I have no scientific method compliant proof that you are a human. Just a series of strong correlations. Does that mean you are not a human?
I actually agree with your first point and I'll even give you that you are correct that you didn't make any causal statements
in this topic. If you want to keep arguing about this point though, I'd gladly dig up some statements from previous topics.
You may want to think the rest of your statements through though. Do you really think that of all people I don't understand that "lack of scientific method compliant proof of something does not prove it wrong nor prove it's opposite."
To quote from my original post: "While what you say may be true, there is absolutely and utterly no proof for it". I'm teaching this kind of material and more advanced versions to both undergrad students and grad students about ten to fifteen hours each week, you may want to think about that before assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about or don't understand a basic statistical concept.
Note that I also said that such proof won't be there for years. I do believe, that if your statements are true, then extensive mediation models may (and should) be able to actually quantify it given a large enough dataset of sufficient quality. But such research takes time. And you'd do well to wonder how come that I know that this kind of research takes time.
