[upsidesinclude]

Not "wrong", dubious.

It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious.

Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite.

Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'

[vidarh]

> Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past

Can we? On what evidence?

The "no evidence refrain" happens because people keep advancing claims without even trying to back them up.

[nevinera]

If you'd like to analyze their approaches to call the study 'dubious', I won't argue with you (it is; they are not strong ones). But making that assertion solely on the position that your personal observations of your own children disagree puts you in the same category as my wife's friend that rejects vaccines because her mom took one and still got covid. That's not how individual observations interact with science.