> but something that's viewed to be scientific fact. By who? Do you seriously read an HN comment that states something you didn't already know with a citation

> but something that's viewed to be scientific fact. By who? Do you seriously read an HN comment that states something you didn't already know with a citation you don't bother to click and then just go forward assuming it's scientific fact? I don't even take publications themselves as scientific facts until they have been reliably reproduced or provide ample evidence.