Adapted from the comments section of this blog:
Its not my version of science. Its your characterisation-OF …. my version of science. But it would be fair to say that I would have a different view of testing an hypothesis, then the idiots running things at the moment. Which is why I’m by far the best qualified person to be minister of science.
Supposing you have a view of light-bulbs. And this view says that there is a parallel universe, with pink elephants in that parallel universe, who can see us, and we cannot see them. And by the way they are far from fucking pleased with your behaviour, and the behaviour of people like you.
But these pink elephants aren’t just given over to displeasure; Nay, they are beings responsible for the illumination of the human race, both metaphorically and literally. Every time I switch on the light-bulb these pink elephants see this, with great haste they say “let their be light” and the light comes on.
Now go to your light-switch and test this hypothesis. You will find that you switch on the light, and amazingly the pink elephant hypothesis is confirmed. All over the world, millions of times per second, the pink elephant hypothesis is being confirmed, over and over and over again. Now we come to a bullshit phrase the anti-scientists have. THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. To be fair the phrase has its uses. But it has its misuses as well.
How can you doubt the pink elephant story, when the weight of evidence is so strong? Look! Try again. Go to your light-switch, and prove the hypothesis anew?
You see the problem here? Its impossible to test any hypothesis in isolation. And should you have a NULL HYPOTHESIS this is simply an excuse for not defining a serious competitor. So science doesn’t really begin until you have a third option.
Here we have the problem with the alleged confirmation of special relativity. Total bullshit theory. More stupid then the pink elephant paradigm, since at least the elephant story isn’t (so far) self-contradictory. But if the believers want to run tests all over the world, the confirmation is going to pile up, and no matter how many times this utter bullshit (childish bullshit) is proven wrong, they will start talking about the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. They will also start talking about peer review, they will start running down those who have proven the theory wrong, they will start sharing lame excuses and locking them in like religious pronouncements, they will start the name-calling (crank, truther, birther, pidder, conspiracy theorist, anti-semite, hater of jew-science … and so forth).
“I”ve turned the light-switch on myself” they will in effect say, with great anger, just before they block you from their blog for all time.
In logic its simply impossible to prove anything without looking at all the main options. Even the two options of the null and the tested hypothesis, are really only testing one option, and finding what you want to know. Try as you might you cannot logically describe a working, productive, cost-effective or workable testing process, that doesn’t look at three or more possibilities.