I maintain a large (publicly available) ecological dataset, and my data have been drawn into several meta-analyses of this type. Often the idea is to simply see if my data empirically fit the "right" distribution. And they fit it and say "wow, it's all connected".

But then I look at the Bus data in this example (the +'s that represent actual data). I'm guessing I could fit a lognormal distribution, a Gamma distribution, or the Dyson distribution that they actuall use, and the data wouldn't be enough to distinguish between them.

Now, all of these distributions result from "simple" rules, but they are three very different sets of simple rules. For the Bus data, the "repelling" by little slips of paper makes sense as the mechanism, so it's a good hypothesis.

But then to flip that around, and say "since this distribution fits the ecological data, the underlying mechanism must be Bus Repelling" is wholly unjustified (as there are other possible fits). And there's a lot of junk science that does that.