I was first trained as an economist at an Ivy League School, and on that level I can see how it makes perfect sense simply by reading the excerpt and using my imagination to come up with an assumption or two.
I then studied Thomistic-Aristotelian Philosophy at a Seminary, learned the difference between a good and a bad argument, and on that level, I’m with you engineers in terms of demanding proof.
That said, I am extremely skeptical about your claim that this study ranks at the top of the piles of crap. There are enough studies that not only have no evidence to support, but ignore all the evidence that ought to be considered because it goes against that I’d think one of those must rank higher.
While I am very dubious about proof, this may be defensible as a theory.
“skeptical about your claim”
Sometimes I think there is a lot of potential doctoral thesis behind some of the articles I read. Especially the outlandishly “factual” ones that cannot possibly have any basis in fact at all. This is one of those. I smell a doctoral thesis brewing... even though I might be incorrect in assuming so.
Another poster said that he “smelled grant money” which sums it up pretty good as well.
I confess that I have not seen every pile of academic crap in the world. But then, asking that of any person would be too demanding of that person’s psyche. ;-) At the end of the day, an argument comes down to data and logic, or faith. My faith is in God, not the religion of Man.