>>16715924 (OP)
It isn't, but a lot of it is, indeed, unsubstantiated theorization. I find that the most successful systems bio labs/papers have a strong grounding in well-validated high-throughput experimentation. Systems approaches to biology are objectively the future of the field, btu its a bit of a frontier and so, naturally, the majority of theories people throw out there are going to be wrong. It's not really for the faint of heart. As a disclaimer, I'm more of a lab scientist, but I'm way more convinced by systems hypotheses that involve specific, simple questions that can be answered by specific analyses of datasets. If having nothing to do with the real world bothers you, then there's usually nothing stopping you from connecting your idea to the real world. If you can't do that, then it still might be a good idea, but you're gonna have to be comfortable with it not being proven (or proven wrong) for another 50 years.
