In real science control groups are required to establish causality.
Social scientists are as terrified of real control groups testing causal hypotheses in human ecology as were the Jesuits of independent interpretations of the Bible. This is because social science is essentially a pre-enlightenment theocratic discipline:
If the powers-that-be oppose your social "science" then no matter how much data you gather, some variant of "correlation doesn't imply causation" will be trotted out to ignore it.
If the powers-that-be like your social "science" then the NYT will take one data point -- perhaps even one anecdote about one person at some point in history and base public policy on it. With the mass media holding mass and preaching said sermons the pious slaves to intellectual fashion, generally those with college degrees from the seminaries known as "colleges", and and with IQs below 140 who like to pretend to be morally superior "thought leaders" (knowing they have safety in numbers from hearing sermons at "mass") will then to the dirty work on the street.
Moreover, this theocratic sophistry, imposing social theories on unwilling human subjects, locks into place powerful interests that oppose any truth-discovery.
From Machiavelli's "The Prince" chapter 6:
"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."
If we are ever to escape this vicious cycle driven by the social sciences, the Enlightenment must penetrate them through Sortocracy:
Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.
Fortunately, like the Protestant movement's impetus to independently interpret the Bible due to the Gutenberg press, the Internet is now letting people have direct access to and independent interpretation of data about human ecologies -- and the demand for freedom from imposition of social theories on unwilling human subjects will increase until freedom from theocratic forms of government -- and their social scientist theologians -- will win the day.
In the process, as with the wars for freedom of religion that lasted over a century, we cannot expect this penetration of Enlightenment values into the social sciences to take place without a struggle.
The reason you're arguing against this is that you are a typical freeloading "conservative" trying to get something for nothing.
Conservatives hate this because they want to be able to complain about how unfair "taxes" -- which they are if they tax economic activities -- while receiving, for free, the primary service of government.
Liberals hate this because it starts to treat government as a service business and unleashes true paleo-libertarian economics such as that promoted by Henry George and Martin Luther King Jr in his last book (the one that got him assassinated) "Where Do We Go From Here?" because what the paleo-libertarians (and Dr. King) recommend is to treat citizens as owners of the business that maintains the infrastructure of property rights by paying out citizens dividends rather than attempting to deliver social goods through bureaucratic management. Liberals serve the bureaucratic management class -- not the people -- so they oppose this even though their "saint" MLK supports it.
BTW: I find it somewhat interesting, although not too surprising, that
The motion picture is mightier than the MIRV.
*Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.
Let's be clear on what
Indeed, all of the reactions to corruption have become vilified as "hate", "terrorism" and "extremism". It is "malicious" to react to, or even let one's self become aware of, conflicts of interest, let alone out and out corruption.
In ethics there is a concept known as "conflict of interest". In almost every instance where someone trots out the line "Never ascribe to malice..." they are responding to a question about someone's potential conflict of interest.
Especially when those in position of trust and authority are involved in improper decisions, it is unethical to trot out the "Never ascribe to malice..." line. Their position of trust and authority obligates them, and their would-be defenders to being open to additional scrutiny as to potential conflicts of interest.
It doesn't matter how much "evidence" one can bring to bear in sociological journals, let alone pundit pieces in the fashion press of the intelligentsia, in support of this or that social theory; imposing them on unwilling human subjects violates humanity.
Quite aside from the fact that "correlation doesn't imply causation", thereby rendering any mountain of data-collection incapable of scientific proof of causality in the social sciences, it is more compassionate to let people learn live out their strongly held beliefs and thereby learn from their mistakes then it is to engender their unquenchable hatred.
Now, I understand that Google has every right to dump the Usenet archives down the memory hole, and to protect the Yalees as they enter into positions of trust and authority, but the problem is that prior to their purchase, there existed an informal social network among early Internet admins that tried to ensure that the entire archive was redundantly copied across multiple institutions. They tended to get together at the annual Hackers' Conference is Santa Rosa. That informal effort was abandoned apparently on the assumption that Google could be trusted.
Ah, well. At least the Yalees got into their positions of trust and authority.