> can't you see that Wikipedia is exactly contradicting you? You need to learn about the null hypothesis. And science. The null hypothesis denies the reality o

> can't you see that Wikipedia is exactly contradicting you? You need to learn about the null hypothesis. And science. The null hypothesis denies the reality of the asserted hypothesis until positive evidence supports it. How difficult is that? The default assumption is that there is no effect, no connection between a stated hypothesis and reality. If I make the claim that Bigfoot exists, and then set out to test my claim using science, under the null hypothesis the default assumption is that Bigfoot does not exist. This means you have it exactly backwards. > ... your insulting tone is not particularly conducive to ongoing discussion A description is not an insult. Learn this difference also. Learn about the null hypothesis. Discover that the null hypothesis cannot be used to make a positive claim or assertion, as you did earlier with your green cheese example. That is reserved to the alternative hypothesis, which is how pseudoscience works, i.e. make a claim and wait for someone else to disprove it with the impossible standard of "proof of a negative" or "absence of evidence": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence