I disagree.
Your opinion here, because you did not provide proof, should be taken with a few grains of salt. People do all sorts of things that are perfectly valid without proof. Science is not only the stuff that can be proven without a doubt (philosophy as an extreme). How would science ever have evolved without mediocre proof that were later confirmed with strong proof?
Now don't get me wrong. I like proof because it often gives insight and might reject other plausible explanations, etc. And there should be way to describe to what degree a paper is formally proven (i.e. what the risks are when you follow the reasoning in the paper).
But in the evolving state of a field of science, there are 'well-confined' areas that should use more proof and 'new' areas that are hardly explored. Don't confuse the two (both have value). The later does not have definitions yet, does not have methods of describing a method, ... Do not require writing a book for such new areas.
Your kind of opinion got me out of science. Creativity has no place there at this moment in time.