I don't have a problem with the idea on it's own. It's a great way to understand all kinds of things. But data to support explanations of that sort is hard to come by.

What I object to is the belief that all explanations that can in principle be put in terms of cause, must in practice be put in terms of cause--otherwise they're useless (which, I think, motivated a lot of unnecessary handwaving in the bbc article, and probably in the ones that it references too).

Researchers should contribute useful data so that others can reference it to make decisions. That data becomes less useful when they have incentives to skew things so that they can meet the awkwardly high bar of "supports a causal argument" just to be worthy of publication.

It ought to be ok to say: "these things go together. Here's the evidence. It might not be possible to untangle the causal web between them, but if you try one I bet you'll see the other," and leave it at that.

Not to say that untangling the causal web isn't worth doing, but sometimes it's just not in the cards, and demanding that we search for it in the cards is like going hungry because all of the carrots left in the grocery store are strangely shaped.