[marshmallow]

There's a difference between...."this data supports or is consistent with Hypotheis A" and ..."this data proves Hypothesis A". The former makes no claims of proof while the latter rules out all other possible hypotheses.

Since the article uses the phrase "may support...", it's making the first of the above statements, not the second.

I don't see a problem.

[alexander_busek]

There's a difference between...."this data supports or is consistent with Hypotheis A" and ..."this data proves Hypothesis A". The former makes no claims of proof while the latter rules out all other possible hypotheses. Since the article uses the phrase "may support...", it's making the first of the above statements, not the second. I don't see a problem.

I just discovered that my uncle likes to eat corn. The ancient Aztecs also ate corn. I make no claim of proof, mind you, but: This supports my hypothesis that my uncle is, in fact, an ancient Aztec.

You see, the new data I have uncovered (about my uncle) is not inconsistent with the established fact (that the Aztecs ate corn).

Of course, in this example, it's obvious that the assertion is ludicrous. But that's only because we are very familiar with the ancient Aztecs and living relatives. But substitute something more mysterious-sounding for the corn, like "stochastic alpha waves" or "enlarged cranial foramen," and (for laypersons) it starts getting more difficult to disbelieve in it (especially if they're predisposed to believe it anyway).

Regards,