5 ms·
> proofing it to be wrong is impossible and not things work. That's pretty much entirely how science works ever since Karl Popper: You find an observation that
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> proofing it to be wrong is impossible and not things work.
That's pretty much entirely how science works ever since Karl Popper: You find an observation that the hypothesis cannot predict or predicts wrong. Bam, hypothesis falsified and rejected, no matter how much positive proof was uncovered until that point.
- hef19898 3y agoWe have a different view when it comes to the hypothesis then: the hypothesis is that there was no pre-historic idustrial civilization, proof that hypothesis wrong. The paper we discuss gives hints on how to proof that non-existence hypothesis wrong, or, in my ill choosesn words, proof the existence of said civilaztion. Or, if you like, find and show proof making the existence of such a civilaztion likely. And no, the burden of proof is not on the side diaputing the claim of such an civilization, as only the existence of something can be proven, not the absence. Hence the very exact formulation of any null-hypothesis. Coming back to some pre-dinosaur industrial civilization (why stop at industrial so, why not an instellar one?): there is a ton of data and samples from that time periods (litterally reaching back hundreda of million of years), so everyone trying to find evidence for such a very bald claim has a lot of data to work with. Just putting out the claim and saying it must be true brcause nody can proof it wrong is not how things work, in reality that is, on the internet everything goes apparantly.