It's funny that no one's understanding your claim.
The effect size claimed for the original paper, as well as how obvious and localised the effect is, would make it incredibly obvious to observe. Thus if this effect were true, we would have to explain how we've all missed it.
This is not comparable to long-term effects, or ones otherwise difficult to notice, etc. We notice the effects of alcohol immediately, and here, it's claimed being hungry-for-lunch is at least as large, if not larger, effect.
This seems obvious nonsense. If any other statistical model can explain the same effect, it's vastly more likely, since it benefits from not making a miracle out of our missing the lethality of mild lunchtime hunger.
The effect size claimed for the original paper, as well as how obvious and localised the effect is, would make it incredibly obvious to observe. Thus if this effect were true, we would have to explain how we've all missed it.
This is not comparable to long-term effects, or ones otherwise difficult to notice, etc. We notice the effects of alcohol immediately, and here, it's claimed being hungry-for-lunch is at least as large, if not larger, effect.
This seems obvious nonsense. If any other statistical model can explain the same effect, it's vastly more likely, since it benefits from not making a miracle out of our missing the lethality of mild lunchtime hunger.