Scientists don't imply cause-effect relationships, they demonstrate them, using evidence, to the exclusion of alternatives. Then they offer an explanation -- a theory about the evidence. These properties are rarely present in psychological studies, especially the explanation requirement.
Here's an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes he has cured the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the patient until he's all better. My cure always works -- it's perfectly reliable, even though it sometimes takes a week. So, where's my Nobel Prize? I've met the same evidence requirement the linked article does, and the latter is being described as science.
> ... the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon ...
It's not a phenomenon, it's an observation, one without any effort to explain it or demonstrate a cause-effect relationship.
> And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe we should first read the underlying studies.
After reading the original work, one is left with the same impression the linked article provides -- a description without an explanation, and no effort to meet the evidence required to move from a correlation to a cause-effect relationship.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman
