I asked a question last week, and the only answer so far gives a summary of "[t]his is emerging science, and it is too soon to know one way or the other". It is a well-written answer which lays a lot of groundwork, but it doesn't "definitively" answer the question. On the other hand, "science just doesn't have the answer right now" is often the only answer that a skeptic can give to a claim.
I plan to give it more time for someone else to answer, but my question here is whether I should eventually accept the answer as "we don't know right now", or if I should leave the question without an accepted answer (potentially for years) until more work has been done on the topic. The claim in question comes from a paper that is currently under peer review (according to the author's CV), so I would think it would be good to at least give it some time to see whether it gets published or withdrawn.
Apologies if this is a duplicate meta question. This is a pretty common answer given by skeptics, but I couldn't find a meta question about it.
For reference, I found a few questions from 2011, but not much more recent than that.