rainbow wrote:hackenslash wrote:It's fairly clear English. He's saying that, until there is a robust competing hypothesis, it seems reasonable to pursue the hypothesis that has actually provided some evidence, as that is more likely to provide some answers.
It then goes back to the weak argument, strong argument scenario - which has already been discussed.
Please learn to scroll back.
The weak vs strong argument scenario has already been discussed but the discussion and resolution therof does not support your contention. To summarise:
The weak argumentThis argument claims a strong conclusion from weak premises.A and B are competing hyptheses.
There is no evidence for A therefore B.
The strong argumentThis argument claims a weaker conclusion from stronger premises.A and B are competing hypotheses.
There is no evidence for A.
There is evidence for B, but parts are missing.
There is no evidence for [Not B].
Therefore, pursue evidence for B and disregard A until evidence is found to support it.
I have consistently used the strong argument and not the weak one. We pursue abiogenesis as a research field because there is no viable alternative and no conclusive evidence that abiogenesis is a non-starter as far as the origin of life goes.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."
Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834