It does if you want it to be taken seriously. Especially when there are other hypothesis available with evidence.
> It really seems to me that you're eager to bicker with someone who is actually credulous of this theory and didn't find any, so you decided to lash out and distort statements
Follow the rules, please. This is pretty deep into uncivil territory.
> refine our falsification of the hypothesis a little further than just saying "I mean, come on"
This seems like a demand that I prove a negative. The purposeful detonation theory has currently no evidence put forth, while we do have evidence for the accidental detonation theory. Demanding that I refine the hypothesis further for something that is currently evidence free is to put the whole thing backwards.
If you believe that the purposeful detonation theory deserves serious consideration, provide evidence. Otherwise don’t get angry at people who are credulous about a theory that’s just been thrown out there.
You mean "incredulous", and the responses 'addingnumbers gave to the question I raised are in every respect what I was hoping someone's would be - measured, thoughtful, thought-provoking, and elucidatory of a possible chain of events which I had theretofore not considered.
Their behavior here has in every respect exemplified the highest among the reasons why I continue to value participation in HN discussions - sure, I've passed the occasional glib comment about the place betimes, but I know no other place on the public Internet where such worthwhile discussions reliably occur.
I'm glad of the light 'addingnumbers has shed - not, as they also noted, by trying to say what did happen, but by describing something that might have which had not and may never have occurred to me. ('dogma1138, too.)
Of your own participation in this thread I regret I cannot honestly say anything so laudatory.
It does if you want it to be taken seriously. Especially when there are other hypothesis available with evidence.
> It really seems to me that you're eager to bicker with someone who is actually credulous of this theory and didn't find any, so you decided to lash out and distort statements
Follow the rules, please. This is pretty deep into uncivil territory.
> refine our falsification of the hypothesis a little further than just saying "I mean, come on"
This seems like a demand that I prove a negative. The purposeful detonation theory has currently no evidence put forth, while we do have evidence for the accidental detonation theory. Demanding that I refine the hypothesis further for something that is currently evidence free is to put the whole thing backwards.
If you believe that the purposeful detonation theory deserves serious consideration, provide evidence. Otherwise don’t get angry at people who are credulous about a theory that’s just been thrown out there.