Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
> According to standard scientific method, when considering the
> merits of the failings in the language hypothesis, the null
> hypothesis is all other explanations, known and unknown,
> combined. Thus the historical accident hypothesis is a proper
> subset of the null hypothesis alternative to the failings in
> the language hypothesis. This is why the argument that there
> is no other hypothesis and therefor the failings in the language
> hypothesis must be correct is an invalid argument.
But this is not the way science is actually done.
Consider the following widespread scientific argument:
Quantum mechanics always returns the correct answer for every scientific
experiment.
With no fudge factors or error bars, QM sometimes provides the correct
answer to 20 decimal points. And it never ever fails.
Therefore QM is correct and any alternative must be wrong.
This argument is often made, minor variations on it are (in my
experience) made whenever and wherever someone suggests that there might
be an alternative to QM. This is how science is actually done, as
opposed to standard scientific method.
|
