Personal Hypotheses

Anyone have any hypotheses that they think could be scientifically confirmed, but which you are not in a position to actually do the sciencing yourself? (Try to exclude any hypotheses that are liable to kick off GD/Pit threads, please.)

Here’s two of mine:

Traditionally, the theory has been that people with symmetrical features were better looking because they were more healthy. Apparently, this has been disproven. In its stead, I am proposing that the lead cause of ones features becoming distorted is through extra manipulation having to be applied to get your skull out of the womb. Symmetric features are a side effect of a larger pelvic gap, and thus a signal that these people bear genes for good, safe births of large-brained children.

Traditionally, the theory has been that life needs water. Personally, I believe that a stewing cauldron of changing chemical reactions is the real key to the spontaneous formation of life. As such, I think that Venus is a more likely habitat for life forms than Mars.

There are a lot of notions and suppositions about male sexual behavior that rely on a belief that male people’s sexuality is more strongly visual, and that a constellation of male sexual behavior is basically a response to visual sexual responsiveness.

I’d like to study blind people and their courting flirting and dating behaviors to see how much male sexual behavior is different when visual sexual interest is removed from the equation.

My hypothesis is that I would find very little difference; that I would find that blind male people learn expected male sexual behaviors and participate in those patterns of behavior in ways not very different from sighted male people.

I believe that the stock market reacts to “business events” a day or two before they become public knowledge. I.e. there are enough insiders with advance knowledge of what is going to be reported that their trading, and the trading of people who know to watch these people is enough to have a noticeable effect on the market.