Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

OP, I think what you keep missing here is that Xei is never actually making a claim to the opposite be true simply because something is proven false, or that because the lack of credible evidence, the hypothesis is false for good. As a man of science, he believes that unless there is empirical evidence to suggest said phenomenon is true, there is no reason to investigate it. It should be plainly obvious how this saves time, as researching down any little old path that suits your fancy is bound to leave you feeling like a dope. You need not prove every possible wacky hypothesis wrong to conclude that it is. For instance, if I said pigs given massive amounts of alcohol shit into space and the result is a star, there isn't a need to give this claim a "proper analysis" because no attempt to make it fit the scientific method of investigation was made. In order for a hypothesis to be taken seriously, it must fit the criteria the scientific community has set out in the name of quality control. If you can't even begin the process scientifically, how can you end it scientifically?