No, hypothesis exploration is entirely valid, it's what science is based on. My issue is that he proceeds to draw very strongly worded conclusions (using the p

No, hypothesis exploration is entirely valid, it's what science is based on. My issue is that he proceeds to draw very strongly worded conclusions (using the phrase "beyond doubt") based on very weak evidence and presenting the experiment in a way which both fails to highlight the inherent flaws and indeed hides them behind a veil of pseudo-scientific and statistical language. Yes explore hypotheses, present anecdotal evidence, but make it clear that's what you're doing and explain why. The next step here isn't to try 5 and 6 leg stands, it's to try it with people who don't understand what is being tested and remove the worst of the flaws in the methodology. As for being hung up on "proof", yes guilty as charged, but that's really not my issue which is don't claim proof when you don't have it. Which in claiming things "beyond any doubt" (which he does) this is what he is doing.