I understand that HN leans toward research as the final word on everything, but sometimes anecdotal evidence is pretty accurate. It's like saying "but the poll researches are saying candidate X is going to win". Then a seasoned advisor actually lands on the ground and counts the yard signs and talks to people, and the picture becomes much less clear.

Not to mention that the "research paper" industry is often very manipulated, inaccurate, and sometimes downright fraudulent. Ironically, also discussed on HN once a blue moon.

What I am saying is, do site the "research papers", but don't use that to shut down an argument. It's a clue, not a fact.