I think it is a little patronising to publish a link on inductive reasoning. You should summarise it and put it in your own words so that we know you know what you're talking about.
And of course it is definitely
statistics or the backward-engineering of a hoaxer (if those letters are there) and either the tunnel vision of faith or else a freak random event which happened to coincidide with the journal's prediction (if it turns out they aren't).
It's not as simple as faith-because-I-don't-like-the-alternative.