Do you have experimental evidence backing that up?
I believe it is like making a scientifically verifiable statement that fire is hot. Not that much testing must be required to prove this. Once the process of scientific exploration begins, how much evidence is required? Not that much for the assertion that fire is fire and that fire is hot.
I know that one of the processes includes, after hypothesizing, a repeated experiment with repeated verifiable results, quantified at every step of the way can be used to support the hypothesis. Often, only a small few tests are necessary to prove the hypothesis.
However, in this case, this one particular case, I would suggest that a great deal of first hand testing and observation must be performed and recorded over a great deal of time to fully assess just how this mechanism presents itself to the experimental process.
Now while my first hand data is a little outdated, I would be anxious to perform further testing to prove my hypothesis, once and for all time.
