that's still n=2, just in a repeat series of experiments!

You are proving my point.

Well an MD once told me my talk about casual inference for novel neuromodulation experiments was 'philosophy'. Biologists are so empirical, many don't even think statistical science or theory of measurement is 'science'.

I've heard the same thing from MDs about causation, but then of course they talk about chemo shrinking a tumor or whatever (not just that chemo is correlated with tumor shrinkage). Or they think if that if there isn't an RCT about it, then it isn't science.

Yes, I've noticed that MDs are very prone to absence of evidence as evidence of absence. But as a science, we are still very immature about evidential rigor outside of RCTs. Not impossible but an actually harder regime. But even RCTs aren't the ideal experiments people think, so 🤷‍♀️

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you LASSO! 🤣