It's extraordinary that an article of this kind beings, "When we are interested in cause and effect relationships ... we have two options" and omits the option most characteristic of science.

Given there's a tremendous amount of reputational damage that has been done to science by those who have omit from their practice of science, science, I don't have much patience for this omission.

If one wants to educate an informed reader on the scientific method, you ought begin with a setup of the "problem of science" (that of causes, effects and their controls) that makes it clear that these far less reliable methods are indeed, far less reliable.

What this article does, instead, is claim the opposite. It omits the ideal case where science is possible, then proceeds to claim a status for randomisation (as a method) far above what it's capable of --