[Politicalkiddo]

So because there isn’t, as they claim, a sufficient alternate theory, their poorly sculpted and botched theory has to be right by default? That’s not scientific.

[Politicalkiddo]

*alternative

[xzins]

The criticism is that their data is wrong. It is ridiculous to demand an alternative theory to a theory built on incorrect data.

[wiggen]

it consistently comes out that they outright change data to fit their conclusions and nobody on the left ever says. “Gee thats a problem.” How can i take them seriously if they refuse to have a serious look at the data? Just maybe the whole issue needs to be looked at with a fresh eye from a fresh prospective but that might entail vested interests losing their subsidies so we’re attacked as no nothing’s.

[Smokin' Joe]

It is like saying that because you can show the crow could not have killed cock robin, but don't have the guilty party in hand, then the crow should be given the needle for the crime because you have no better alternative.

Sometimes, the purpose of science is to find out what relationships are NOT present as much or more than to find out which relationships exist.

Edison not having an immediate working alternative to linen thread did not make the linen light bulb filament successful.

Besides, it is decidedly difficult to propose correct alternatives which fit data which has been altered or completely suppressed.

[papertyger]

So because there isn’t, as they claim, a sufficient alternate theory, their poorly sculpted and botched theory has to be right by default? That’s not scientific.

Hey, it worked for Darwinian Evolution!

[Captain Compassion]

>So because there isn’t, as they claim, a sufficient alternate theory, their poorly sculpted and botched theory has to be right by default? That’s not scientific.<

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
— Karl Popper