Re: Unconvincing hype @ ST
> The lady is proposing a *testable* hypothesis.
1. Is it testable?
2. Actualy, yes. For something to have been scientifically proven, you need
- proof that the assertion is true
- a repeatable experiment supporting the proof
- acceptance of the proof and of the repeatable experimental results by the wider scientific community - also known as "peer review"
Unless these three requirements have been met, it's not science. It's something which can be classified anywhere from superstition to opinion to hypothesis. In this particular case, merely asserting that something must be true because photographs of different things appear to indicate a similarity between them does not make it true, let alone a proven scientific fact.
Perhaps Wikipedia - for lack of a better source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
can clarify some of your own confusion as to what "Science" and "Scientific proof" actually mean. One of the most relevant paragraphs is the one quoting Richard Feynman.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
