That's how reason works. "You can't prove there isn't a silver, bubblegum-farting unicorn living on the asteroid belt" doesn't make it true. Nor more plausible.
Thank you for your restatement of Russell's teapot (1). As an aside that's about unfalsifiable claims and the burden of proof, not logic in general.
But the idea that this is "Nor more plausible" is wrong - there are good reasons to believe that human health and development that has occurred under 1g throughout our entire evolutionary history could go wrong when deprived of that, is in fact a highly plausible idea.
The "extraordinary claim" would be that there is no impact on human health and development from living entirely in (for example) lunar 0.16g.
I'm all for looking into it getting the data, but no space agency has yet constructed the required fractional G rotating structure. Nasa has made plans, see e.g. Nautilus-X (2) and AGOS study (3) but nothing has yet been built "due to budget constraints".
But the idea that this is "Nor more plausible" is wrong - there are good reasons to believe that human health and development that has occurred under 1g throughout our entire evolutionary history could go wrong when deprived of that, is in fact a highly plausible idea.
The "extraordinary claim" would be that there is no impact on human health and development from living entirely in (for example) lunar 0.16g.
I'm all for looking into it getting the data, but no space agency has yet constructed the required fractional G rotating structure. Nasa has made plans, see e.g. Nautilus-X (2) and AGOS study (3) but nothing has yet been built "due to budget constraints".
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X
3) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319164912_AGOS-Arti...
> By changing the rotation rate AGOS Stage 1 can be used as a testbed for different g-levels and their influence on human health.