Malcolm
I think were folks get wrapped around the axle is with your use of the word hypothesis. You say things like "Show me the data that proves the hypothesis and I'll accept it."
But isn't a hypothesis by definition an as of yet unproven theory, so to speak? If we show you proof, then it is no longer a hypothesis, so what you ask is an impossible feat, the equivalent to a scientific Catch 22.
If I look up the definition, I find things like:
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
All of which are very tentative in nature, as none are presumed to be proven. If they were proven, it would no longer be a hypothesis.
So I think much of the frustration that is being expressed by the Forum over your posts stems from this disconnect between your asking for proof before accepting the hypothesis, when the rest of us are still using the term much more in the way it is defined above as an unproven set of propositions to explain the phenomena we think may be related as a means to "guide the investigation".
If we have proof, it is proof, and no longer hypothetical. And if it is a hypothesis, an unproven thing, how can you ask for proof before accepting it? Doesn't make sense.
Perhaps you can illuminate your use of the term.
Andrew