>"Well, the hypothesis was tested on data... that data being drugs to reduce amyloid plaques, which have only recently been found to not work to ameliorate Alzh

>"Well, the hypothesis was tested on data... that data being drugs to reduce amyloid plaques, which have only recently been found to not work to ameliorate Alzheimer's." Right now I'm not even interested in how accurate the amyloid hypothesis turns out to be[1], but as you say its only recently the the hypothesis been tested. Sure, maybe it is just hard to test it, etc. But, why did people find it "unthinkable" to consider the hypothesis was incorrect before it was ever really tested? I feel like there is a really good example of philosophy/sociology of science fail to learn from here. The problem I'm interested in isnt with the hypothesis itself, its with the seemingly unwarranted very strong belief in the hypothesis amongst the "experts". [1] When I first learned amyloids are one of the most thermodynamically favorable states of polypeptides and the cell must devote constant resources to preventing their formation, I pretty much gave 99/1 odds amyloids are a symptom instead of cause.