Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What would you define as "scientifically proven"? In general, an observation that is observable, repeatable, and predictive is considered the criteria there. Take for instance genetics. The entire field is, with a few exceptions, built on nothing but correlations. And social science is 100% built on correlations.

If a geneticist were to state that some gene or another were linked to the unibrow [1] would you consider this scientifically dubious? After all, in that case all they did was look at people who have unibrows and look to find characteristics that were more common to this group than others. What if that genetic indicator did show up disproportionately among all people with unibrows and was relatively less common among those without a unibrow?

[1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10815

Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact