This is strange, because the example they give about "correlation does not imply causation" being a "frisco" outing you as a non-scientist is very much not supported by the Slate article they claim to have gotten it from. The Slate article provides a very reasonable take on that phrase and in fact implies that we might need <i>more</i> such catchy phrases outing the common fallacies that scientists make and ignore. It gives a great reason why it's such an important phrase -- because forgetting it can lead us to <i>interventions</i> that make things worse rather than better. If saying "correlation does not imply causation" outs you as a non-scientist, then all it's saying is "true" scientists don't give a shit about the implications of their research, nor if people misconstrue their results and use it to justify harmful interventions. Which may be true, I suppose, but it's an extremely cynical take; the phrase is about whether and how we can <i>apply</i> scientific results to better our world, something apparently "true" scientists don't give a shit about?