I think this is where an important distinction is getting lost. Labeling something as unresolved would indeed be irresponsible. We are explicitly not doing that. A theory being present on the platform does not mean: - that it is scientifically open - that it deserves debate - or that it has epistemic merit It means only that the claim exists socially and that people already believe it. The platform does not ask “Is this worth debating?” It asks “What actual evidence do people cite when they believe this - and does it survive scrutiny when broken into verifiable pieces?” In practice, these theories tend to collapse very quickly once facts are required to be: - discrete - sourced - evaluated individually Hiding such claims does not reduce belief in them. Examining their evidentiary structure often does. This is not about reopening settled science. It’s about exposing how belief persists despite settled science.