[ninetyninenine]

Dear comment reader, there's no benefit for reading this section of the thread. Not only is he wrong. He's been rude and insulting and in violation of the rules. I flagged his section of the thread. I'm not the moderator but I think this thread will be killed by him once he sees it.

Meanwhile, before the moderator arrives, I'm placing this comment here to ask people to stop responding to him and aggravating the thread further. Thank you.

[FabHK]

Or maybe you're misguided? You seem to want to expound a fairly naive Popperian view of science, but cannot distinguish "proposition" from "hypothesis".

[ninetyninenine]

So? That’s my opinion. The insults were uncalled for.

Please don’t aggrevate this further.

[montjoy]

Hi. Comment reader here. Regardless whether you are right or not you’re coming across as obstinate. It might do you well to eat some humble pie.

[ninetyninenine]

If that’s the case, then I apologize, it wasn’t my intention. Still, being confident about my answers is entirely different from insults which are always uncalled for.

Either way please stop extending this thread.

[_proofs]

no one has really insulted you, so the playing the victim part is also coming across as more obstinate -- what you are experiencing is people becoming frustrated with the assertions.

you have been sufficiently approached, your points addressed, and multiple people have provided ample reasoning that expound on their assertions, adding context, nuance, historical, conventional, or otherwise.

all you have contributed to the over-reaching discussion is assertions (in some cases they come across as not fully thought out, as if the tape was not fully played), followed be an emphatic and repeated: "you're wrong!"

and for as much as you have claimed to strip away culture as an influence to the discussion, you have also managed to strip away important nuances between established words in our -- cultural -- expression here: proposition vs. hypothesis.

it appears that the position here is attempting to generally (and loosely) apply a statistical hypothesis as the internal world model for science at large, where in stats the word hypothesis is almost a binary operator evaluating to true or false (ie: Null Hypothesis), and functionally operates more like asserting a proposition over a data set, and then evaluating the data to see if it holds.

as a comment reader, while i appreciate the discussion, reducing everything to a statistical hypothesis and then telling people they are wrong when they show, not tell, there are important, established, agreed upon meanings, is not contributing in good faith, which i imagine is causing a lot of the aforementioned frustrations.

[ninetyninenine]

I respectfully ask you to stop.

I was insulted go back and look at it.

If you want to discuss things with me, please do so in another thread. I welcome you to tell me I'm wrong as I will do the same if I disagree with you. Telling me I'm wrong is not an insult and it's the basis of truthful honest discussion. If you believe I'm wrong, tell me straight. Don't dance around it.