Solitary Man

For one who harps on persistence to irrational models, you really should evaluate yourself. Andrew Criddle has thoroughly debunked the notion that the minimal-HJ is falsifiable. The minimal-HJ, as you call it, does make a prediction (that no concrete evidence can be found), and it can be falsified (if concrete evidence is found), and it has circumstantial evidence surrounding it anyway (gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, Paul, Q, Thomas).

gstafleu

That is a really good one, Solitary Man, thanks for that. An unfalsifiable theory is in fact falsifiable because you can falsify its unfalsifiabilty by showing it is falsifiable after all. Someone should be able to use that in Philosophy of Science 101. Excellent!

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

But the minimal HJ never claimed to be unfalsifiable. That's your misinterpretation of its claims.

Amaleq13

I would think it obvious even if I hadn't repeated it several times:

The nature of the evidence involved precludes the sort of rigor to which my interlocutor aspires.

There really is no basis for your pessimism since there are, no doubt, plenty of undiscovered caves with the same potential as those containing the Nag Hammadi library of scrolls and plenty of young goatherds available to happen upon them.

gstafleu

Shouldn't our position then be that until such caves turn up we cannot say much if anything about an HJ, but that we will reconsider once the caveyness of the known world has increased?

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

But we already have evidence for an HJ, therefore we should say all we can about an HJ until more evidence shows up to alter the theory.

robto

Re the OP: I'm not sure what the point of the analogy is, other than to point out that both fields have unsolved problems.

But the answer in both cases is the same: come up with a convincing alternative hypothesis. The world awaits.