>"And when the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against them, they rely on unsubstantiated theorizing to hand-wave them away." Facts can't be 'against' so

>"And when the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against them, they rely on unsubstantiated theorizing to hand-wave them away." Facts can't be 'against' something. That's silly, anthropomorphism. Facts must necessarily be interpreted, they are themselves meaningless until we choose to apply them toward some argument, which must, axiomatically, require some amount of unsubstantiated theorizing. Have you no sense of the history of the philosophy of science at all?