I went to the Cato study and didn't see any hypothesis testing going on... let alone anyone trying to prove a null hypothesis.
Agreed. Which means data, controls and methodolgy is not likely available for review. The first thing I look for in research reports is peer-reveiw comments. If absent, I skim it, looking ofr indicators of generalizationa nd lack of serious rigor. Most often, researchers do not like to report the theorem the study is based on is void, meaning the data led them elsewhere than what they wanted it to.
If a chemist or engineer did that, they would probably injure themselves in the resultant lab blast and fire, but social science is mostly based on self-reported evidence, therefore, it is unproveable-hence the “pragmatic”, a blend of scientific and assessment beased models, usually heavy empahsis on thee later and distincly absent of the former methodolgy- ask the subject/database only what you want them to reply to rather than studying the evidence on its own merits.
Scientific method is so unfeeling, and all.