The phenomenon of people pulling in and trying to explain problems from outside their specialty occurs in every discipline and is a part of normal scientific wo

The phenomenon of people pulling in and trying to explain problems from outside their specialty occurs in every discipline and is a part of normal scientific work. Usually the overwhelming majority of these attempts fail, but they are useful nonetheless because in failing they help to define the limits of the specialty. Ironically, you're complaint that they do this witout considering "if the concept is valid for the domain" is unanswerable until an attempt is made and its claims critiqued. That aside, you raised good questions. I think would be useful if you turned your list of critical questions into a template for criticising instances of analogous reasoning anywhere. It would help greatly in evaluating these attempts.