It actually points up something I may post about at some point, which is that statistical science itself is often a dead end - you can publish paper after paper after paper about effects that show up in 60% of the population - but you don't know what separates the 60% from the 40% - and still have no real grasp on the phenomenon and no real ability to manipulate it.

Have you posted something about this? I think it's an important point, too little appreciated on LessWrong.

ETA: I see that I asked the same at the time. I guess that means the answer is "no".