> if any explanation other than the obvious one were true, then sooner or later someone would present some evidence for this and it would be Big News. Everyone would know. The absence of Big News is therefore evidence that no one has found any credible evidence against the obvious explanation
In part-1 the author devotes a lot of time stressing how the scientific method is about disproving and not proving.
Popperian mindset (closely related to Bayesian?) is hard to maintain. The big news principle also stresses about “evidence for” and not “evidence against”.
It is tricky to have popular discourse around this, since refutation of hypotheses dont make big news.
In part-1 the author devotes a lot of time stressing how the scientific method is about disproving and not proving.
Popperian mindset (closely related to Bayesian?) is hard to maintain. The big news principle also stresses about “evidence for” and not “evidence against”. It is tricky to have popular discourse around this, since refutation of hypotheses dont make big news.