Not only are you arrogant for little reason, you are arrogant for no reason.
There is no mention, anywhere, of an “absence of counter-example” as a proof of hypothesis in any description of the scientific method, but, ironically, and very appropos - your assertion is that of the logical fallacy of an “argument from ignorance”.
“The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true. “
YOU’VE made ME laugh, “snoogums”.
What’s your background, anyway? Elementary Ed?
Not only are you arrogant for little reason, you are arrogant for no reason.Yawn... Now that you know what scientific method is, can you tell what makes a hypothesis special?There is no mention, anywhere, of an “absence of counter-example” as a proof of hypothesis in any description of the scientific method, but, ironically, and very appropos - your assertion is that of the logical fallacy of an “argument from ignorance”.
“The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true. “
YOU’VE made ME laugh, “snoogums”.
What’s your background, anyway? Elementary Ed?