Not defending ridiculous claims based on small sample sets, but isn't this how it's supposed to work? You run some tests and notice a pattern and develop an hypothesis, and then continue to expand the test to see if it holds true? Then other groups perform the same tests to hopefully receive the same results so that we end up with known facts. Essentially, the definition of scientific method.

Yeah, but people aren't actually that interested in the scientific method here. Criticizing things is an easy way to appear smart, and that's the main point.

Empirical research has never been about some true/false binary; that's a myth perpetuated on HN. It has always been about strength of evidence, improving models, and opening paths for future research. I've seen people dismiss case studies by decrying that their n=1, for god's sake.