I agree with the comment you are replying to. You're commenting on a website of the most successful tech incubator of all time where, at least from a quick glance, all of the top companies were founded by people in their 20s. Given the researches intro sentence of "Many observers, and many investors, believe that young people are especially likely to produce the most successful new firms" I think their conclusion is really just using an invalid viewpoint of what "the most successful new firms" means.

Per your example, if something has 0 explanation for whatever has 99% of influence, it is just not a useful explanatory mechanism. That doesn't mean there isn't a good explanation.

If you could recognize the causal networks behind a complex system the way a toddler can recognize a cat, after being shown very few examples, there would be no need for statistics.

Unfortunately, you can't. (But it doesn't stop lucky guessers thinking they can.)

A scientific hypothesis is correct or not independently of statistical analysis. It's true before it is verified. Statistics is just a social mechanism for demonstrating its correctness to other people (or yourself.)

It's entirely possible for someone to know they're right, actually be right, and it be uncheckable with statistics. The only difference between an outlier and a lucky guesser is knowledge. Blah blah blah anything that's measured ceases to be a good measure blah blah blah.