Regulation
Those supporting regulation and interference always have call to those with a free-market ideal to prove the negative. The problem is you cannot prove a negative. Science does not call for you to do so.
The scientific method would be as I have stated many times for those calling for regulation to demonstrate that they have a statistically significant improvement over the natural state (no regulation) for their preferred form.
But this is never the argument, rather sophism about how they are better as they are extingent forces that are in place and thus must be in place come as arguments. That being that they exist in some form, that they must be necessary.
Then there are the arguments, it is just a social science, so we cannot expect this data.
What utter trash.
Regulation needs be as it is there. Sheer foolishness. Prove it. Show how the take-over of roads, rail, power, water (which is being opened up again as well), telecoms, etc has helped. None of these started as a natural monopoly. They became such due to this argument that it is good for us. Show the data that proves that!
If so, then it should be easy for you to prove.
Physics is JUST STATISTICAL. Yet, here we are and all we as economists need do is use that great wealth of statistical tools available to us, and what do we do? Avoid, cherry pick data, and generally do what we can to demonstrate that we are not a science.
No wonder my cohorts in the field of Physics think much economics a big joke.