somebody wrote:
> No, but that's a posteriori. Anyone may make a claim without good reason or
> evidence, and I can justifiably laugh at him (for making a claim without
> supporting reasoning or data). That's present time. That same person, in the
> next 10 years, may actually work very hard to prove his claim, and let's say
> it turns out to be correct (whether it was dumb luck or unexplainable genius
> behind him making such a claim 10 years before he had any evidence, matters
> not). But that won't change the fact that at the time he made the claim, he
> did not know enough to make it.
> 
> 

So, how much is the minimal evidence required before the person can
state their absurd hypothesis aloud? Or would you prefer no one made a
hypothesis until after they had enough evidence to back it up?

Post a reply to this message