> It is impossible because we have very strong evidence against it.
We do not have evidence against it.
Everything he has written is the _lack_ of things that he thinks should logically happen, rather than things that are happening that would disprove the hunger hypothesis.
Evidence would some other experiential data, such as the number of birdies in golf remaining the same before and after lunch.
>Everything he has written is the _lack_ of things that he thinks should logically happen, rather than things that are happening that would disprove the hunger hypothesis.
Actually arguing on the "lack of things that should logically happen" is exactly the same as arguing on "things that are happening".
In other words, what he says is the same whether he says "It can't be happen because X would be happen too and we don't see X", or he says "It can't happen because we see Y" (where Y is not X).
> Actually arguing on the "lack of things that should logically happen" is exactly the same as arguing on "things that are happening".
Reasoning from first principles is a huge downfall the higher up the science stack you go. The only time you really reason from first principles is in math. When you get to psychology and sociology, you need try fit observed data to hypotheses.
The author has suggested interesting follow up experiments, but has given no backing for the disproval of the hypothesis other than "I don't believe that can possibly be true."
That's not science, or even an informed opinion on science. That's just religion.
>Reasoning from first principles is a huge downfall the higher up the science stack you go. The only time you really reason from first principles is in math. When you get to psychology and sociology, you need try fit observed data to hypotheses.
Observed reality/experience -- which is what the author invokes -- is not "first principles" though.
> Observed reality/experience -- which is what the author invokes -- is not "first principles" though.
You're missing a huge point though, which is the difference between "observed reality" and calling out BS.
The author simply says that all these other things should happen if the hypothesis is incorrect, without any experimental data behind it. There is no evidence behind his assertion that all these other things should happen, so he's reasoning from his life experiences and his personal biases.
We do not have evidence against it.
Everything he has written is the _lack_ of things that he thinks should logically happen, rather than things that are happening that would disprove the hunger hypothesis.
Evidence would some other experiential data, such as the number of birdies in golf remaining the same before and after lunch.